JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 25.4.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Jude, Khurda. dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 7.3.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda, allowing the application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC filed by the present opposite party and directing the present petitioners to remove the disputed wall raised by them over the suit plot. 2. The case of the plaintiff-opposite party is that the suit plot measuring Ac.0.050 dec. stands recorded in the name of defendant No.4. Defendant No 3-Bharat Petroleum Corporation has an out-let over the disputed plot. The opposite party is a dealer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation for the said out-let for the purpose of storing, selling and distributing petrol and petroleum products from that out-let. There was a compound wall of the suit premises on its eastern extremity and to the further East of the said wall the homestead land of the present petitioners is situated. On 8.1.2000 the present petitioners with some labourers illegally demolished the eastern side compound wall of the suit premises to an extent of 167 links and by encroaching upon the suit premises to an extent of 30 links in breadth from East to West, and 167 links from North to South, have constructed a new wall covering the underground tanks constructed within the suit premises for storage of petrol and diesel. By such encroachment and erection of a fresh wall by the petitioners, the underground tanks meant for storage of petrol and diesel have been detached from pump site and approach to it was also closed from the side of the opposite party. By such conduct of the present petitioners there is serious apprehension of danger to public safety since the underground petrol and diesel tanks are required to be well guarded and taken care of and the same has been kept within the compound wall raised by the present petitioners. Since the opposite party is in possession of the pump site it is its responsibility' to take care of the underground tanks containing the highly explosive substances which are likely to cause serious danger to the neighbourhood, if not properly guarded and taken care of. Since the opposite party is in possession of the pump site it is its responsibility' to take care of the underground tanks containing the highly explosive substances which are likely to cause serious danger to the neighbourhood, if not properly guarded and taken care of. In the application for injunction prayer was made for issuance of mandatory injunction directing the present petitioners to remove the wall raised over the suit property and a further prayer was also made for grant of interlocutory mandatory injunction for removal of the said wall. The present petitioners in spite of notice did not appear in the court nor filed any objection. 3. The trial Court considering the materials on record, allowed the petition and directed the petitioners by way of mandatory injunction for removal of the disputed wall by 15.3.2000. Against the said order Misc. Appeal No.3 of 2000 was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Khurda, by the present petitioners and the same having been dismissed, this revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case there was no justification for the Court below to pass an interlocutory order directing the petitioners to demolish the wall and the Court could have waited till conclusion of the suit. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Court's discretion in granting mandatory injunction at this stage is applicable only in exceptional, cases and even if a strong prima facie case is found in favour of the plaintiff same is not a ground for issuing such an order. 5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party submits that pursuant to the order passed by the trial Court petitioners have themselves demolished the wall and in support of the same an affidavit has been filed along with some photographs. It is further submitted on behalf of the opposite party that keeping in mind the hazards the public may suffer due to raising of the wall, the Courts below have rightly passed the order for removal of the wall. 6. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that on an application for interim mandatory injunction, orders are passed rarely allowing the same only in exceptional cases. It is to be seen as to whether in the facts and circumstances of this case such an order was necessary or not. 6. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that on an application for interim mandatory injunction, orders are passed rarely allowing the same only in exceptional cases. It is to be seen as to whether in the facts and circumstances of this case such an order was necessary or not. Admittedly no objection has been filed to the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC praying for issuance of mandatory injunction. Therefore, the averments made in the petition filed on behalf of the opposite party stand uncontroverted. From the averments in the said petition as well as in the plaint it appears that the opposite party is a licence holder for the out-let and is in physical possession of the pump site. It further appears from the record that after construction of the wall by the present petitioners the underground tanks in which petrol and diesel are stored have been brought within the boundary of the present petitioners. Such an act of the petitioners has definitely affected the business of the opposite party. But more important is the fact that the underground tanks containing petrol and diesel which are highly explosive in nature are required to be guarded properly to avoid any kind of explosion due to accident. It is the duty of the opposite party to look after the safety of the tanks containing such highly explosive materials and if the same are kept within the compound of the present petitioners, it will not be possible on the part of the opposite party to look after the safety of the tanks and any explosion due to accident will be attributed to the present opposite party. Under such circumstances, it was necessary to pass an ad interim order of mandatory injunction directing the present petitioners to remove the wall from over the disputed property. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to two decisions reported in Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden and others, ; and Dalpat Kumar and another Vs. Prahlad Singh and others and submits that even if a strong prima facie case is found in favour of the opposite party, that is not a ground for issuance of mandatory injunction at this stage. 7. Coomi Sorab Warden and others, ; and Dalpat Kumar and another Vs. Prahlad Singh and others and submits that even if a strong prima facie case is found in favour of the opposite party, that is not a ground for issuance of mandatory injunction at this stage. 7. From the discussions made by both the Courts below in the impugned judgments it is clear that Courts below have not only discussed about a strong prima facie case in favour of the opposite party but also have taken into consideration the possibility of serious damage to the public in case of explosion due to an accident, if the underground tanks are not properly guarded which is the duty of the present opposite party as a dealer in respect of the said out-let. I, therefore, do not find any force in the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners. The revision being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed