Dilip Gupta and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. This first appeal from order is directed against the order dated 9.5.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) allowing application 6-C for interim injunction in Original Suit No.2754 of 2010. 2. The office has reported the appeal to be defective on the ground that typed copy of the judgment and formal order has not been filed. 3. The defendant-appellants have filed an application for exempting them from filing typed copy in view of the fact that the certified copy filed is a typed copy and legible one. 4. We therefore, dispense with the filing of the typed copy of the impugned judgment. 5. Office to treat the appeal as regular and to allot regular number accordingly. 6. We have heard Sri H.M.B.Sinha, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants. 7. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed the above original suit for a decree of permanent injunction in respect of Arazi No.280 and 282 total area 5120 square meters restraining the defendant-appellants, their agents, servants, employees, representatives etc. from causing any obstruction and creating any nuisance in the peaceful possession, enjoyment and running of the college and from carrying out construction/renovation work in respect of the school building on the aforesaid land. In the said suit, on contest the interim injunction application has been allowed by the impugned order and the defendant-appellants have been restrained from interfering in the running of the school and construction etc. of the school building during the pendency of the suit. 8. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants is only aggrieved by the second part of the injunction order which restrained the defendant-appellants from interfering with the construction work of the plaintiff-respondent No.1. 9. The submission of Sri Sinha is that in respect of the same property the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has entered into litigations with several persons. Earlier the dispute had come before the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3652 of 2007 which was decided vide judgment and order dated 2.4.2010. The aforesaid judgment and order directs the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property during the pendency of the mutation proceedings. Subsequently, by the order dated 13.8.2010 on the review/modification application preferred in the above writ petition, the above order was modified and it was provided that the respondents in the writ petition may carry out necessary repairs in the building. Subsequently, by the order dated 13.8.2010 on the review/modification application preferred in the above writ petition, the above order was modified and it was provided that the respondents in the writ petition may carry out necessary repairs in the building. The Court below in passing the interim injunction order has ignored the above orders, specially the order dated 13.8.2010 which permitted repairs in the building. 10. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the impugned order. 11. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 claims to have purchased about 950 square meters of land of Arazi No.280 and 282 vide registered sale deed dated 11.6.2003 and an additional 4170 square meters of the said very plots vide registered sale deed dated 14.9.2004. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 is admittedly in possession of the said land on which a school building has been constructed and the school is being run. Therefore, there appears to be no illegality in the finding of the court below that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in its favour as it is plaintiff-respondent who will ultimately suffer irreparable loss in case the property is not protected during the pendency of the suit. 12. The orders of the High Court referred to above have not been dealt with by the court below in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant admits that at least the subsequent order of the High Court dated 13.8.2010 was not brought on record and to the notice of the court below. In the absence of the said order it cannot be said that the court below committed any error of law in granting the interim injunction. 13. In view of above, we do not find any substance in the appeal. It lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. However, the defendant-appellant may approach the court below, if so advised, with an appropriate application along with the order of the High Court dated 13.8.2010 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3652 of 2007 and seek necessary clarification or modification in the injunction order. In case any such application is moved, the court below may examine it and only on being satisfied that the aforesaid order relates to the same Arazi and further if mutation proceedings are pending and the said order is found to be continuing/operating, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 15. In case any such application is moved, the court below may examine it and only on being satisfied that the aforesaid order relates to the same Arazi and further if mutation proceedings are pending and the said order is found to be continuing/operating, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 15. The appeal is dismissed with the above observations.