Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. 2. The appellants have limited grievance against the order dated 23.07.2004. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, though the trial Court has granted the injunction against the appellants despite the fact that the appellants have good case as the appellants patta was recognised by the various authorities as the patta was challenged before the Panchayat Samiti and thereafter, before the Additional Collector, Nagore and further by filing the Writ Petition No. 4795/2003. But, presently, the appellants are facing difficulties because the appellants will not be able to complete finishing work in the construction already raised by them. The appellants want to protect their property by having the roof completed as well as want to have their gate properly fixed to protect the property. 3. It is clear from the order passed by the Court below itself that the Court below very specifically observed that in case the defendants-appellants will raise “further construction”, it will cause multiplicity of the proceedings. After observing so, the trial Court ordered that the appellants shall not raise further construction on the land marked "J" in the sketch map. 4. The order of the trial Court about maintaining status quo with respect to the property in dispute is referable to the reasons given by the trial Court and, therefore, it is clear from the order impugned itself that the appellants have not been restrained from doing finishing work in the already raised construction. The apprehension of the appellants that they have been restrained from even doing finishing work in the property is dispute is absolutely misconceived. The order to maintain the status quo is required to read as an order passed in the facts of the case and cannot be applied to keep the parties away from doing the things which they can do in the facts of the case. 5. The order to maintain the status quo is required to read as an order passed in the facts of the case and cannot be applied to keep the parties away from doing the things which they can do in the facts of the case. 5. In a suit for injunction, against raising of construction by the defendant, the Court, after taking into consideration of fact of construction already raised by the defendant, passes an order to maintain status quo and restrain defendant from raising " further construction", then, normally it may be construed that the Court has passed the order to maintain status quo about the structural changes as the order to maintain status quo is referable to the grievance of the petitioner against raising of the construction by the defendant and not referable to any claim of the plaintiff against making finishing work in the already raised construction. In cases where the party wants to seek any relief even against completion of finishing work in the already raised construction, then, in such a situation, the plaintiff or the party seeking relief should specifically either plead the grounds or demonstrate the grounds to the Court so, that the Court may pass specific order against the other party restraining him from completing the finishing work in the existing structure. The reason is that the grievance of the party may be against the structural changes in the property detriment to the interest of the party seeking relief . But, for seeking relief against the completion of pending work without any addition, alteration or removal of the structure already in existence and for doing the finishing work, there must exist some special reason, when, there exist no special reason, it may be presumed that the order to maintain stauts quo is referable to the structural changes in the construction in existence excluding the finishing work which may be necessary for protection of the property and for safe use of the property by the occupant. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal, hence dismissed.