P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ranga Reddy, representing Sri Raghuveer Reddy, the counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G. Seshadri, the learned Amicus Curiae, appointed by this court to assist the court. The C. R. P. is preferred as against an order made by the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, made in C. M. A. No. 9 of 2002. Originally, the revision petitioner had preferred the C. R. P. No. 5338 of 2002 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Code") and inasmuch as the C. R. P. was dismissed as not maintainable in view of the amendments brought to Section 115 of the Code, the revision petitioner had preferred the present C. R. P. under Article 227 of the constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE revision petitioner herein, as plaintiff in the suit O. S. No. 76 of 2001, had filed I. A. No. 94 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel under order 39 Rule 2 of the Code praying to pass an order of interim mandatory injunction for demolition of the structures raised by the respondent for restoring status quo ante. The court of first instance after hearing both parties allowed the application directing the demolition of the entire construction raised by the respondent and restore the status quo ante within one month from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent in the said application preferred C. M. A. No. 9 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil judge, Siddipet, and the appellate court had reversed the same by allowing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-plaintiff initially filed C. R. P. No. 5338 of 2002 under Section 115 of the Code which was dismissed as not maintainable as referred to supra and consequent thereupon, had preferred the present C. R. P. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sri Ranga Reddy, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner-plaintiff had submitted that it is a clear case of violation of the interim injunction order which was in force and the interim injunction was granted on 2. 5. Sri Ranga Reddy, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner-plaintiff had submitted that it is a clear case of violation of the interim injunction order which was in force and the interim injunction was granted on 2. 5. 2001 and despite the said order, the respondent in undue hurry had raised certain super-structures and this aspect can be definitely inferred even from the report of the Commissioner and the court of first instance after taking these aspects into consideration ultimately had granted temporary mandatory injunction with a direction to demolish the entire constructions raised by him by restoring the status quo ante within one month from the date of the order which was reversed by the appellate court. The learned counsel submitted that this is a fit case where temporary injunction as prayed for which was granted by the court of first instance should have been confirmed even by the appellate court and the reversal is unsustainable in law. Sri G. Seshadri, the learned Amicus Curiae, appointed by this court, had submitted that at the earliest point of time, the respondent had taken a stand that he is not the owner of the property and his wife is the owner of the property and that being so, the suit itself is not maintainable without impleading the wife as a party since she is a necessary party to the suit. The learned counsel also would maintain that it is a case where an interim injunction was granted as against the husband and at that stage, on the ground that certain constructions were made during the pendency of the litigation and on the ground that these constructions were made when the interim order was in force, an order of demolition was made, which is an extreme step. The learned counsel also submitted that there cannot be any doubt relating to the power of the court to grant temporary injunction in a mandatory form, but however, such power may have to be exercised by the court very sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the allegations made in the counter before the court of first instance and the reasons recorded by the first court and also the appellate court as well. Heard the counsel. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the allegations made in the counter before the court of first instance and the reasons recorded by the first court and also the appellate court as well. Heard the counsel. ( 3 ) THE case of the revision petitioner, as plaintiff in the suit, in short is that he is the owner of the land in S. No. 63/a of an extent of Ac. 2-27 gts at Gowraram and he filed the suit O. S. No. 76 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, gajwel, for perpetual injunction relating to the suit lands items 1 and 2 and had obtained interim injunction on 2. 5. 2001 and even after service of the said order, the respondent had not stopped the construction and proceeded with further constructions in violation of the order and he is liable to be detained in civil prison and the structures raised in contravention of the interim order are liable to be demolished by granting interim mandatory injunction for restoring status quo ante. ( 4 ) THE respondent had taken a stand that he had not disobeyed the orders of the court and S. No. 63/2 admeasuring Ac. 2-27 guntas is Government land and the said land is mentioned as B. C. colony in col. No. 12 of the pahani and his wife was granted patta vide certificate No. 23186 by order bearing No. B/192/99 of M. R. O. , wargal, bearing plot No. 49 admeasuring 100 square yards in S. No. 62/2. It is also stated that the wife of defendant No. 2 had also been assigned the land and the respective allottees have been in possession of the respective plots of land, which had been allotted to those parties. As can be seen from the material available on record, there is some controversy relating to the identity of the property. Apart from this aspect of the matter, an interim injunction was granted as against the husband and the wife was not impleaded as a party though husband had taken the specific plea that the land was allotted to the wife. Apart from this aspect of the matter, an interim injunction was granted as against the husband and the wife was not impleaded as a party though husband had taken the specific plea that the land was allotted to the wife. Strong reliance was placed on the report of the Commissioner wherein no doubt the Commissioner had observed that there was some problem at this point and had noted certain constructions. The question which falls for consideration is whether the order of the appellate court in reversing the order of the court of the first instance is liable to be set aside in the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power of the court to grant temporary injunction on an interlocutory application in mandatory form need not detain us any longer since it was held in a catena of decisions that such power is there but the same has to be exercised carefully, cautiously and sparingly and under exceptional circumstances only. ( 5 ) IN NANDAN PICTURES LTD. vs. ART PICTURES LTD and OTHERS, the Division Bench of calcutta High Court held as follows:"if a mandatory injunction is granted at all on an interlocutory application, it is granted only to restore the status quo and not granted to establish a new state of things, differing from the state which existed at the date when the suit was instituted. The one case in which a mandatory injunction is issued on an interlocutory application is where, with notice of the institution of the plaintiff s suit and the prayer made in it for an injunction to restrain the doing of a certain act, the defendant does that act and thereby alters the factual basis upon which the plaintiff claimed his relief. An injunction issues in such a case in order that the defendant cannot take advantage of his own act and defeat the suit by saying that the old cause of action no longer survived and a new cause of action for a new type of suit had arisen. When such is found to be the position, the Court grants a mandatory injunction even on an interlocutory application directing the defendant to undo what he has done with notice of the plaintiff s suit and the claim therein and thereby compels him to restore the position which existed at the date of the suit. When such is found to be the position, the Court grants a mandatory injunction even on an interlocutory application directing the defendant to undo what he has done with notice of the plaintiff s suit and the claim therein and thereby compels him to restore the position which existed at the date of the suit. Even such an order has been made only when the application for an ad interim injunction pending the disposal of the suit is finally disposed of and not during the pendency of the application itself. " ( 6 ) IN GANAPATHI REDDY RAMI REDDY AND ANOTHER vs. DUVVURI CHINNAPA REDDY, it was held as follows:"ordinarily a Court does not grant a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage, but that is not because it has no jurisdiction to do so. In a proper case, which must be rare, the Court certainly has jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage. If on the facts before it, the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has exercised that jurisdiction considering the present case to be of an extraordinary nature, I fail to see how this Court can interfere in Revision with that order, which is of a discretionary nature. There is no limitation on the Court s power to grant a mandatory injunction so as to restore the status quo prior to the institution of the suit in an appropriate case, particularly when the status quo ante has been altered shortly prior to the suit and that act itself was the direct and proximate cause as a result of which the suit came to be filed. " ( 7 ) THE same view was expressed in BUCHAIAH vs. VENKATESWARLU, MARIA vs. ALVARO and in GOVERDHAN SING vs. MULKH RAI. In MALLA SURANNA vs. KALLA SOMULU AND others, it was held that:"the language of Order 39, Rule 1 is wide enough to include an order in the form of a mandatory injunction upon an interlocutory application. The words "the court may by order grant a temporary injunction or make such other order for the purpose of preventing, damaging or otherwise causing injury or loss as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders", clearly take in their fold, an order in the mandatory form for doing of a particular thing. The words "the court may by order grant a temporary injunction or make such other order for the purpose of preventing, damaging or otherwise causing injury or loss as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders", clearly take in their fold, an order in the mandatory form for doing of a particular thing. " ( 8 ) RELIANCE also was placed on NARAIH DASS vs. ATMA RAM. On the material available on record, the petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit for the relief of perpetual injunction and obtained interim injunction. It is stated that despite service of interim injunction, the husband had further proceeded with the constructions. At the earliest point of time, in the counter, specific stand was taken that the land was allotted to the wife, but the wife was not impleaded as a party. Apart from this aspect of the matter, there is no clear material available as to what was the stage of constructions and how and in what manner the respondent had completed the constructions. No doubt, strong reliance was placed on the report of the Commissioner, which in my considered opinion is a vague report. On the strength of such material, I am of the considered opinion that a temporary injunction in a mandatory form cannot be granted. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration and also in the light of the fact that there is some controversy relating to the identity of the property also since these are all matters to be decided at the time of disposal of the suit, the appellate court thought that it would be highly unjust and inequitable in ordering demolition of constructions while deciding an interlocutory application. Hence, viewed from any angle, I do not see any reason to interfere with the reversing order made by the Appellate Court, which is a well reasoned and well justified order. In view of the same, the C. R. P. is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed. No costs. ( 9 ) THIS court records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae Sri G. Seshadri in this regard.