Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in O.A.No.538 of 2009, an application seeking interim injunction pending the suit in C.S.No.448 of 2009 wherein permanent injunction simplicitor was asked for by the appellant/plaintiff specifically alleging that the property was originally purchased by his father on 11. 1978; that subsequently, it was settled on him on 27. 2003; and that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and has been making the vacant land tax to the Corporation of Madras who is the respondent herein. 2. The learned Single Judge on hearing both sides and looking into the materials available, has dismissed the application. Hence this appeal has arisen. 3. The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff/appellant is in possession of the property which is a vacant land. The contention that was raised by the Corporation is that it is not a vacant land; that the property belonged to the Corporation; that it was actually fenced with iron poles; that further it is a play ground; that the P.L.R. extract stands in the name of the Corporation; that under the circumstances it is not the property of the plaintiff, and hence it was to be refused. The learned Single Judge on considering the merits, denied the interim relief sought for. 4. Now at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the appellant filed W.P.No.12496 of 2008 wherein a writ was sought for, and it was denied. But, at the same time, while dismissing the writ petition, this Court observed that he can approach the Court of civil law for appropriate remedy. Accordingly, he came before the Court of civil law by filing a suit, wherein he has asked for permanent injunction simplicitor. Now, it is pertinent to point out that the very same contentions were raised by both the appellant and the respondent Corporation before the writ Court, and it has also directed the appellant to approach the civil Court for remedy. This Court is of the considered opinion that seeking for bare injunction on the same allegations would not satisfy the law to get the remedy. This Court is of the considered opinion that seeking for bare injunction on the same allegations would not satisfy the law to get the remedy. Further in the instant case, this Court is able to see that there was a rival claim made by the appellant/plaintiff on the one side and the respondent Corporation on the other in respect of the landed property. In such circumstances, the question as to the title has got to be decided. This Court is unable to notice any merit in the appeal and it does not require admission. But at the same time, if advised, the appellant/plaintiff can seek for amendment of the plaint seeking the reliefs further before the Court, and if done, it could be considered on merits by the learned Single Judge. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant would further urge that the respondent Corporation should be restrained from making further construction in the property. This Court is of the view that this contention could also be considered by the learned Single Judge, and if necessary, a Commissioner of Court can be appointed to make inspection and file a report thereon. Thereafter, the Court can consider the situation and pass suitable orders thereon. 6. Accordingly, this original side appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.