Judgment :- S. JAGADEESAN, J. These appeals have been filed by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.8.2002 in O.A.Nos.331 and 333 of 2002 filed by the respondents. 2. The respondents fled O.A.Nos.331 to 334 of 2002 under Section 9 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim reliefs till the arbitration proceedings are to be initiated and completed. The respondent in O.S.A.No.346 of 2002 is one Mr.Anandaraj and the respondent in O.S.A.No.347 of 2002 is one Mr.Mohan K.Varma. Mr.Anandaraj filed O.A.Nos.331 and 332 of 2002 respectively seeking orders of interim injunction restraining the appellant from dealing with the vacant land in S.F.Nos.438/2 and 439 part and to restrain the appellant from dealing with 8 flats till the arbitration proceedings are over. The respondent in O.S.A.No.347 of 2002 filed O.A.Nos.333 and 334 of 2002 for identical reliefs. 3. The grievance of the respondents herein is that they purchased two flats constructed by the appellant in S.F.Nos. 439/3 and 439/6 to 439/9. Totally, 144 flats were constructed in the said survey numbers. The appellant owns vacant land in S.F.No.438 on the eastern side of the existing flats. The appellant, while constructing the flats in S.F.No.439, constructed sewage line along S.F.Nos.438/2E and 438/2F and connected the same to the septic tank on the north eastern corner, which is marked in the plan as point A to B. The appellant sold the vacant land in S.F.No.438. Having sold the land, they changed the sewage channel from point A to B to point A to C as marked in the plan. 4. Hence, both the respondents came forward with these applications stating that the appellant is not entitled to alter the existing sewage system and as per the agreements, they have to construct an activated sludge treatment plant inside the complex. Since, in contravention of the sanctioned plan, the appellant had laid the sewage channel along point A to B marked in the plan and now, has altered the same to point A to C, which is also contrary to the agreed terms, the appellant should be restrained from dealing with the vacant land in S.F.Nos.438/2 and 439 part and also 8 unsold flats pending arbitration proceedings. Further, in the affidavits, though they sought for mandatory injunction directing the appellant to restore the existing sewage lines passing through the public road and the land lying on the other side of Gems Park Complex, which is in S.F.Nos.438/2 and 439 part connected to the septic tank situated in the poramboke land, no separate application was filed for such relief. 5. The said applications were contested by the appellant by filing O.A.Nos.1918 to 1921 of 2002 to vacate the interim orders. However, after considering the rival contentions of both the learned counsel, the learned Judge passed an order allowing O.A.Nos.332 and 334 of 2002 and granted interim injunction restraining the appellant from alienating six unsold flats, since two were sold already, and also directed the appellant to file an affidavit of undertaking that they will not sell the six unsold flats. The appellant has no grievance so far as this order of the learned Judge is concerned and hence, the same is not challenged. 6. So far as O.A.Nos.331 and 333 of 2002 filed by the respondents seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the appellant from dealing with the vacant land are concerned, though the learned Judge permitted the appellant to alienate the land, however, imposed a condition that the appellant shall not cause any damage to the septic line A to B as pointed out in the plan and it should be maintained till the appellant provides activated sludge treatment plant inside the complex of the respondents. Now, these appeals have been filed by the appellant so far as the direction issued by the learned Judge in O.A.Nos.331 and 333 of 2002 directing the appellant as well as the purchasers not to cause any damage to the septic line running from point A to B. 7. At the time of admission, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the appellant represented that the appellant has no objection to carry out the direction issued by the learned Judge to provide activated sludge treatment plant inside the complex, for which, the learned Judge himself has granted six months' time. At the time of admission, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the appellant represented that the appellant has no objection to carry out the direction issued by the learned Judge to provide activated sludge treatment plant inside the complex, for which, the learned Judge himself has granted six months' time. However, he contended that the septic line running from point A to B had already been disconnected even prior to the order of the learned Judge and a new line has been laid along point A to C. In view of the alternate provision made to the respondents, there is no need to keep the sewage channel running from point A to B. Since the land has already been sold, the purchasers are not willing to take the land and they are raising a dispute. To avoid any unnecessary dispute between the appellant and the purchasers of the adjacent site, the alternate arrangement made by the appellant by providing the sewage channel along the line A to C can be accepted and the appellant is willing to construct the activated sludge treatment plant within 12 weeks inside the complex. 8. On hearing the arguments of the learned counsel at the time of admission, we thought that the dispute between the parties falls in a narrow compass and the appeals need not be admitted and no interim order need be granted. Instead, the appeals can be disposed of after issuing notice to the other side and after hearing both sides. Accordingly, we directed the learned counsel for the appellant to serve notice on the learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared before the learned Judge. 9. On 17.9.2002, Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents and it was represented that the respondents are not agreeable to have the activated sludge treatment plant within the complex and the appellant should provide the same in his adjacent land. Further, the alternate sewage channel provided along the line A to C is defective and hence, the old existing line A to B should be directed to be maintained as directed by the learned Judge. 10. Further, the alternate sewage channel provided along the line A to C is defective and hence, the old existing line A to B should be directed to be maintained as directed by the learned Judge. 10. After hearing both the learned counsel for some time, we expressed our view that both the sewage tanks are located in the poramboke land and so far as the existing line A to B is concerned, it also leads to the poramboke land and the respondents have not raised any objection so long for such construction of the septic tank in a poramboke land, that too, in contravention of the sanctioned plan. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents requested time on the ground that the matter can be settled and further requested that the matter be posted on 19.9.2002. 11. On 19.9.2002, when the appeals were taken up for final disposal, the same submissions were reiterated by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. But, ultimately, the learned counsel for the appellant, on behalf of his client, represented that he would file an undertaking affidavit from the appellant stating that the activated sludge treatment plant will be constructed within twelve weeks and till such time, the appellant will maintain the sewage channel point A to C in a good condition without causing any prejudice to the interests of the respondents. This was agreed by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents and the matter was directed to be called at 2.15 PM for the undertaking affidavit by the appellant. At 2.15 PM, the learned counsel for the appellant filed an undertaking affidavit from his client and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents was also present and agreed for such terms. 12. However, instead of recording the undertaking affidavit from the appellant, we thought that it would be better that both the parties can file a consent memo, since the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents agreed for the terms stated in the undertaking affidavit of the appellant and we directed the consent memo be filed by 4 PM. Since the respondents did not sign the consent memo, we directed the matter to be posted for judgment today and further directed both the learned counsel to file the consent memo in the course of the day. 13. Since the respondents did not sign the consent memo, we directed the matter to be posted for judgment today and further directed both the learned counsel to file the consent memo in the course of the day. 13. But, ultimately, we were informed by the learned Senior Counsel that the respondents are not agreeable for any terms and the matter may be listed today, so that within the two holidays i.e., saturday and sunday, both the learned counsel would sit together and arrive at some terms. Today, the learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents is absent. However, on behalf of the respondents, Ms.Gladys Daniel has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel and reargued the matter. Further, time was sought on the ground that the respondents also are filing the appeals against the orders of the learned Single Judge and all the appeals can be heard together. 14. Even though the learned counsel for the respondents has sought time for filing the appeal by the respondents, since the matter is pending for more than a week, and repeated adjournments have been taken to arrive at the settlement and to file a joint memo, the request of the learned counsel for the respondents is rejected. Even if any appeal is filed by the respondents, their grievance could be only around the points before us. Hence, without granting the adjournment, we have decided to dispose of the appeals after hearing the learned counsel and we accordingly heard the learned counsel for the respondents on their grievance against the order of the learned Judge. 15. We have carefully considered the contentions of the respective counsel. As already stated, the dispute falls in a very very narrow compass. In S.F.NOs.439/3 and 439/6 to 439/9, 144 flats were constructed for sale to various parties by the appellant. Admittedly, out of 144 flats, 138 flats were sold and six flats were unsold. Of the 138 occupants, only the respondents herein have come to this Court raising a dispute with regard to the alterations made by the appellant to the existing sewage channel. When the other 136 occupants were not aggrieved and the respondents herein also have not initiated proceedings in a representative capacity, we are unable to appreciate the grievance of the respondents as to how they alone are aggrieved. 16. When the other 136 occupants were not aggrieved and the respondents herein also have not initiated proceedings in a representative capacity, we are unable to appreciate the grievance of the respondents as to how they alone are aggrieved. 16. There is no dispute that the sewage channel or the sewage line as well as septic tank in the originally existing line A to B is in violation of the sanctioned plan. However, not only the respondents, but also other purchasers have been tolerating the same without raising any objection so long. It cannot be said that the respondents were not aware about the sewage line A to B. They must be aware about the sewage line as that is the most important part of the building where multi-storeys are constructed. 17. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the applications, the respondents clearly stated about the existing sewage line along point A to B. That means, the respondents, with full knowledge about the existing sewage line along point A to B, purchased and occupied the flats. Their grievance seems to be that the appellant should not alienate the adjacent vacant land and cause hindrance for the same with some ulterior motive. Except this, we are unable to find any good intention on the part of the respondents in this litigation. 18. The learned Judge did not consider the alternate sewage line provided by the appellant. Without considering the same, the learned Judge permitted the appellant to sell the adjacent land with a direction not to cause any damage to the septic line from point A to B. Now, it is an admitted case before us that the line A to B had been disconnected and the appellant had provided the alternate sewage channel A to C. The only grievance of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents is that the alternate sewage channel i.e., along the line A to C is not properly laid and there is leakage in some of the places. Except this, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents could not raise any objection, because the previous sewage line along point A to B also reaches the septic tank in the poramboke land. 19. The respondents cannot have any right to have the septic tank for their premises in a Government poramboke land. Except this, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents could not raise any objection, because the previous sewage line along point A to B also reaches the septic tank in the poramboke land. 19. The respondents cannot have any right to have the septic tank for their premises in a Government poramboke land. Equally, now, the alternate line provided along point A to C is also connected with the septic tank in another poramboke land. When the original septic tank as well as alternate septic tank are situated in a Government poramboke land, we are unable to see any vested right with the respondents to claim that they are entitled to have a particular septic tank of their choice. At any point of time, it is open to the public authorities to close down either one or both the septic tanks, since they are situated in the poramboke land. 20. Knowing fully this, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to construct the activated sludge treatment plant within the complex. When the appellant has no objection for putting up such activated sludge treatment plant and is requiring only some time, we are of the view that the appellant can be granted such time for providing the activated sludge treatment plant within the complex and till such time, the alternate sewage line A to C can be directed to be maintained in a good condition by the appellant. 21. So far as AB line is concerned, admittedly, that had been disconnected and the substituted line AC had already been provided. This is clear from the prayer in O.A. No.331 of 2002, which is as follows : "Mandatory interim injunction directing the respondent and all persons claiming under the respondent to immediately restore the existing sewage lines of the GEMS Park complex in Mogappair Eri Scheme passing through the public road, i.e., Dodla Sundaram Main Road and the land lying on the other side of the GEMS Park complex and the Dodla Sundaram Main Road in S.Nos.438/2 and 439 part meant for Phase II and connected to the septic tank situate in the poramboke land adjacent to the land in S.Nos.438/2 and 439 part meant for Phase II pending arbitration proceedings." (emphasis by us) 22. However, the prayer in O.A.No.333 of 2002 filed by Mohan K.Varma is slightly different, which is as follows : "In any way disturbing the existing sewage lines passing through the public road, i.e., Dodla Sundaram Main Road and the land lying on the other side of the GEMS PARK complex and the Dodla Sundaram Main Road, in S.Nos.438/2 and 438 part and connected to the septic tank situate in the poramboke land adjacent to the subject land in S.No.438/2 and 439 part." 23. When both the respondents are residing in different flats in the multi-storeyed building having a common sewage, the respondent in O.S.A.No.346 of 2002 has sought for the prayer for mandatory injunction for the restoration of the existing sewage line whereas the respondent in O.S.A.No.347 of 2002 seeks the relief of interim injunction to maintain the existing sewage line AB. This itself is contrary to each other and hence, there cannot be any dispute that both of them have not approached this Court with any reality to the facts of the case. Further, in view of the conflicting prayers sought for by the respondents in these appeals, we are of the view that they have not come to this Court with clean hands and as such, they are not entitled for any interim relief. 24. When a mandatory injunction is sought for, admittedly, AB line had already been damaged or disconnected. In view of the prayer in O.A.No.331 of 2002 seeking mandatory injunction, there is no purpose in directing the appellant or the purchaser not to cause any damage to AB line, which had already been done. Further, in view of the disconnection of AB line and providing alternate line AC, AB line is of no use as on date and in such circumstances, there is no useful purpose in issuing a direction to the appellant or purchaser not to cause any damage to the existing AB line, especially when the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents had agreed at one stage for the undertaking given by the appellant to maintain the AC line in proper manner. 25. When the arguments were advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, it was vehemently contended that the respondents are not agreeable to have the activated sludge treatment plant inside the complex. 25. When the arguments were advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, it was vehemently contended that the respondents are not agreeable to have the activated sludge treatment plant inside the complex. However, before us, the learned Senior Counsel conceded that the respondents are agreeable, if the appellant put up the plant in accordance with the sanctioned plan without any violation. 26. In this regard, the appellant has filed an undertaking affidavit before us that they would construct the activated sludge treatment plant in accordance with the original sanctioned plan. In view of the said undertaking, they are willing to carry out the direction issued by the learned Judge. However, the appellant has reduced the requisite time to 12 weeks to carry out the direction, even though the learned Judge granted six months' time. Hence, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the respondents are not agreeable to have the plant inside the complex cannot be countenanced. 27. In fact, when we questioned the learned counsel for the respondents as to their grievance against the order under appeals, she reiterated that the direction issued to the appellant to construct the activated sludge treatment plant within the complex cannot be carried out and as such, that direction has to be set aside. Since this contention had already been referred to and is being discussed lower down, it is unnecessary for us to adjourn the matter to enable the respondents to file an appeal on this issue. Hence, the matter is taken up on merits. 28. The flat owners in the complex can have the sewage system only within their complex. They cannot seek the construction of the sewage tank in another man's land leaving their own complex. More over, in the affidavit filed in support of O.A.Nos.331 and 333 of 2002, both the respondents, in paragraph 12 of the affidavit, have stated as follows : "The respondent also promised to provide an activated sludge treatment plant for the apartment complex. As per the plan approved by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and the Ambattur Municipality, the activated sludge treatment plant was to be constructed inside the apartment complex itself. As per the plan approved by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and the Ambattur Municipality, the activated sludge treatment plant was to be constructed inside the apartment complex itself. Contrary to the approved plan, the respondent constructed a septic tank outside the complex in a poramboke land with sewage lines passing through the public road and a portion of the subject land in S.F.Nos.438/2 and 439 part lying on the other side of the road." 29. From the above averments, it is very clear that as per the sanctioned plan, the activated sludge treatment plant should be situated only inside the apartment complex. Hence, when the parties have agreed to such terms, it is not open to the respondents now to contend that such treatment plant cannot be located within the complex. They have to agree for the construction of the activated sludge treatment plant within the complex. In fact, the direction issued by the learned Judge in this regard is only to compel the appellant to carry out their obligation arising out of the agreement between the parties. When that be the case, the respondents cannot have any grievance to file an appeal against the order of the learned Judge. 30. The appellant also filed an undertaking affidavit giving the following undertakings : "The appellant hereby undertakes that the sewage lines from point A to C in the map annexed to the order of this Hon'ble Court in O.A.Nos.331 to 334 of 2002 will be maintained without any disturbance till the activated sludge treatment plant is put up within the complex. The appellant will ensure that the disposal of sewage from Point A to Point C is not interrupted or disturbed till such time and for this appellant seeks the co-operation and support of the residents of Gems Park Complex. The appellant also undertakes that the activated sludge treatment plant will be put up within the complex as ordered by the learned Judge. The appellant undertakes that the plant will be put up within twelve weeks from today. The residents, however, should not object and should give full co-operation to the appellant." In fact, this was agreed upon by both the counsel at 2.15 PM on 19.9.2002. 31. The appellant undertakes that the plant will be put up within twelve weeks from today. The residents, however, should not object and should give full co-operation to the appellant." In fact, this was agreed upon by both the counsel at 2.15 PM on 19.9.2002. 31. Pursuant to the representation of both the learned counsel on 19.9.2002, the joint memo was prepared by the appellant in the following terms : "The appellant has filed an affidavit of undertaking. The respondents have perused the same and agreed with the course of action undertaken to be performed by the appellant. In view of the above, the order of the learned Judge may be modified suitably and the appellant may be directed to maintain the sewage line from A to C instead of A to B." However, the respondents had given a go-by. 32. Even though the respondents did not sign the joint memo, the undertaking of the appellant is recorded and for the reasons stated above, we are of the view that as stated already, the direction issued by the learned Judge not to damage the sewage line A to B cannot be sustained, especially in view of the alternate line provided for the respondents by the appellant as AB line was already disconnected and is not in use and also in view of the undertaking given by the appellant to construct the activated sludge treatment plant within twelve weeks from today. Hence, the direction of the learned Judge is set aside. 33. Accordingly, the original side appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the above CMPs are dismissed as unnecessary.