Judgment :- K. Narayana Kurup,J. 1. O.S. As at the instance of the fifth and sixth defendants in C.S. No.21 of 2000 on the file of this Court, in which, the following prayers have been made; (i) directing the defendants to jointly and severally bind themselves to pay sum of Rs.11,00,000/- as damages to the plaintiff (ii) issuing mandatory injunction directing defendants 5 and 6 to strictly comply with all the relevant rules and regulations of the Corporation of Chennai, so far as it relates to the planning permission issued to the defendants 5 and 6 to put up construction at No.29-A Nowroji Road, Chetpet, Chennai-31 and directing the defendants not to put up construction in any manner either permanent or of a temporary nature, measuring 600 sq.ft. which is shown in the plan annexed with the plaint and also directing the defendants that the passage on the southern side of the plaintiff’s property is kept totally free of passage for the use of the plaintiff and his family. (iii) issuing a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 5 and 6 to remove the unauthoritsed construction put up and presently existing at No.29-A Nowroji Road, Chennai-3 and (iv) issuing a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants agents and persons under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and prescriptive rights of the plaintiff and his family enjoyed in the passage in the plan which is annexed to the plaint. 2. Pending suit, the plaintiff has filed three interim application: (i) O.A. No.31 of 2000 for interim injunction restraining the appellants herein from putting up any construction in any manner, either permanent or temporary nature, measuring 600 sq.ft which is shown in the plan annexed with the plaint at No.29A Nowroji Road, Chetpet, Chennai-31 and also to keep the passage totally free as passage for the use of the plaintiff and his family; (ii) O.A. No.32 of 2000 for interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and prescriptive rights of the plaintiff and his family enjoyed in the said passage and (iii) O.A.No.95 of 2000 for interim injunction restraining the appellants from putting up any construction in any manner and from putting up the second floor at No.20-6 Nowroji Road, Chetpet, Chennai-31. 3. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the appellants traversing the various contentions raised in the abovesaid O.As Learned trial Judge, by common order dated 22.9.2000, allowed all the said O.As and hence these O.As 4. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we are of opinion that the common order under challenge in these O.S.As cannot be legally sustained and the reliefs prayed for in the O.As and the O.S.As are substantially the same. Learned trial judge, by going into the entire gamut of the case, after incisive analysis of the material available, has passed the common order, which has the effect of deciding the main suit itself. All the reliefs sought for in the O.As have been granted after deeply delving into the merits of the case. At this stage, we may observe that the trial Court, while dealing with the interim applications, is not at all concerned to decide what is the correct answer to be given at the final hearing of the suit. All that the trial court has to decide is whether there is a prima facie case or balance of convenience justifying the grant of the relief sought for the interim applications. Most of the matters of which findings have been entered by the learned trial Judge, are matters for evidence, which cannot be decided merely relying on affidavits. We find that the plaintiff has claimed easementary rights over the alleged passage. Whether the plaintiff has acquired the right of easement over the passage in question is a question of fact which can be decided only after letting in evidence. The further question as to whether the appellants have committed any deviation from the approved plan, is again a matter which can be decided on appreciation of evidence. 5. In essence, learned trial judge, with great respect, while passing the common order granting all the reliefs sought for in the plaint, has traveled much beyond the scope of interlocutory applications, which will have the effect of prejudicing the trial itself, Accordingly, we set aside the order impugned in these O.S.As, vacate the findings entered by the learned Singly Judge and request the learned Judge to expedite the trial and dispose of the same independently, untrammeled by the findings already entered. The O.S.As are allowed as above. No cost. The O.S.As are allowed as above. No cost. These O.S. Appeals having been posted this day for being mentioned in the presence of the aforesaid Advocates on either side, the Court made the following order:- (Judgment of the Court made by K. Narayana Kurup, J.) After the disposal of the O.S.As on 18.10.2001, a mention was made by learned counsel for the respondents today that a request may be made to the learned Singly Judge to dispose of the Civil suit itself within a stipulated time. We do not find any reason why such a request shall not be acceded to. Accordingly, we request the learned singly Judge to dispose of the suit within three months from 1.11.2001. This order shall form part and parcel of the order passed on 18.10.2001 in these O.S.As.