( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the issue involved in both the cases is one and the same. ( 2 ) THE respondents/defendants filed the above two revision petitions against the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, tadepalligudem, in allowing C. M. A. Nos. 12 and 15 of 2002 filed by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of I. A. Nos. 2203 and 1973 of 2000 in O. S. No. 485 of 2000 by the principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs filed the above suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove cement bricks and not to interfere with ABEF lane either by closing the same or by causing any obstruction, and other reliefs. ( 4 ) PENDING the suit the defendants filed LA. No. 1974 of 2000 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. While granting injunction the learned Judge appointed an advocate Commissioner on 28-9-2000 to inspect the suit locality. After completion of enquiry the Advocate Commissioner filed a report stating that ABC portion belongs to the defendants wherein a cattle shed was in existence. ABEF is a common passage through which the plaintiffs can reach the northern side Rajaveedhi. On the Southern side of ABC portion there is an old wall without plastering, which belongs to the defendants to a height of 5 feet and half of which is collapsed and 1/3rd of bricks fell towards the site of plaintiffs house and 3/4th of bricks fell towards the site of the defendants and ABEF passage is approximately 3 yards width in which there exist cement bricks. ( 5 ) AFTER the report was filed, the plaintiffs filed LA. No. 2203 of 2000 alleging that after the Commissioner submitted the report the defendants highhandedly constructed a wall along with AB lane, and they are not in a position to resist the illegal action of the defendants, since at the time of construction of the said wall suit is pending. The defendants have ,no right to alter the nature of the suit. Hence the defendants may be directed to remove the newly constructed wall in ABEF lane by granting temporary mandatory injunction. The defendants have ,no right to alter the nature of the suit. Hence the defendants may be directed to remove the newly constructed wall in ABEF lane by granting temporary mandatory injunction. The trial Court dismissed the said Interlocutory application holding that the second report and plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner goes to show that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the land more than the site purchased by them, who were having direct access into the Northern side rajaveedhi and the plan filed by the advocate Commissioner goes to show that the lane was meant for passage for the defendants and if the wall is constructed along with the AB lane that will not cause any obstruction to the plaintiffs to go to the schedule property from the Northern side main road. The balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiffs, and if temporary injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs the loss sustained by the defendant would be more than the loss sustained by the plaintiffs. Observing so, the learned Judge dismissed the Interlocutory application. ( 6 ) ON dismissal of I. A. No. 2203 of 2000 the plaintiffs earlier LA. No. 1973 of 2000 in which the temporary injunction initially granted was cancelled holding that as per the plan, submitted by the second advocate Commissioner the plaintiffs actually purchased 400 Sq. yards of site but they are in possession and enjoyment of 436 Sq. yards i. e. 36 Sq. yards in excess. Under the settlement deed, it was shown that the defendants purchased 252 Sq. yards but they are in possession and enjoyment of 222 Sq. yards having 32 Sq. yards of less site than the site purchased by them, which shows that the AD wall did not situate in the site owned by the plaintiffs. Holding so, the learned Judge dismissed the Interlocutory application. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed CMA Nos. 15 and 12 of 2002 respectively. ( 7 ) THE CMA No. 12 of 2005 was allowed by the Senior Civil Judge holding that the existence of AD wall is not disputed by the defendants or by the Advocate commissioner. When the defendants did not file any counter-claim or file a suit for recovery of possession of 32 Sq. 15 and 12 of 2002 respectively. ( 7 ) THE CMA No. 12 of 2005 was allowed by the Senior Civil Judge holding that the existence of AD wall is not disputed by the defendants or by the Advocate commissioner. When the defendants did not file any counter-claim or file a suit for recovery of possession of 32 Sq. yards of land from the plaintiffs, without there being any claim by way of suit, no such relief can be granted to the defendants, basing upon the Commissioner s report. When the existence of AD wall is found at the time of execution of Commission and the plaintiffs established fixed boundaries for Ex. A1 to A. 3 they are entitled to protect the property and the defendants cannot have any construction on the said ad wall till the suit is disposed of. Accordingly the learned appellate Judge allowed the appeal and granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. ( 8 ) SO far as CMA No. 15 of 2002 is concerned, the lower Court observed that the first Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed earlier in I. A. No. 1974 of 2004 while granting temporary injunction, filed a report stating that there was no wall along with AD lane and as per Ex. A1 and A2 the defendants have no title over the suit land and only have easementary rights in passage. Even according to the document produced by the defendants, they cannot obstruct the plaintiffs by making construction over the suit land. Holding so, the learned Judge allowed the appeal to remove the said construction and to maintain status quo. ( 9 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 10 ) I have gone through the relevant material available on record. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that the Advocate commissioner appointed earlier has inspected the site and filed a report stating that by the date of first inspection there was no wall in existence of AD lane. What he states is that the plaintiffs will have access to the main road on the other side and they are dumping waste in the passage which is exclusively meant for the usage of defendants. What he states is that the plaintiffs will have access to the main road on the other side and they are dumping waste in the passage which is exclusively meant for the usage of defendants. To protect the property from such encroachment permanent construction was made in place of the bricks which were adjusted along with ad wall at the time of inspection of the commissioner. ( 11 ) WHEN admittedly the defendants will not have any title tc the suit land and will have only easementary rights of passage and even according to their own document and as per Exs. A1 and A. 2 the same is used as a passage, the defendants cannot claim any exclusive rights over the said property. In view of the same, the order passed by the lower Court in allowing the appeals and ordering for removal of the construction does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The question whether the plaintiffs are in possession of excess land than what they are entitled to is a matter, which can be gone into during the course of trial. ( 12 ) IN the absence of any counter suit filed by the revision petitioners claiming recovery of possession from the plaintiffs it is not open for them to occupy the land in the passage and claim any exclusive rights over the same and the party who takes the law into his hands when the suit is pending, is not entitled to any equitable rights to protect the said rights. The same has missed with the attention of the Trial court while dismissing the Interlocutory applications, which are rightly set aside by the lower Appellate Court and restored the status quo in preserving the rights of the parties till the suit is disposed of. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, these two civil revision petitions are dismissed. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence to substantiate their pleas and the lower Court has to dispose of the suit uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the lower Appellate court or by this Court. No costs.