Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 22nd March, 2012, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land in question. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is revealed that the respondents no. 2 to 4 filed a suit for permanent injunction together with an application of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, against the petitioner-defendant stating that the respondents-plaintiffs' residential plot no. 94/20 situated at Mansarowar, Jaipur, was initially allotted by the Rajasthan Housing Board to Shri Om Prakash Sharma on 26th February, 1997. All the plots allotted by the Rajasthan Housing Board fall within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, which stands now transferred to Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, on 15th May, 2000. It is alleged that the respondents no. 2 to 4 have been raising illegal construction on the 3rd floor of the said plot no. 94/20 without approval of the petitioner and against the provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 and the rules made there under. The employees of Municipal Corporation resisted the said illegal constructions, hence, it led the respondent-plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction together with a stay application on 28th February, 2012. The Municipal Corporation, pursuant to the service of summon, appeared in the court and filed the reply. Having heard both the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, passed an interim order on the application of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from seizing the respondents-plaintiffs' property and further not to demolish the same sans observing due process of law. Aggrieved with this order, the respondents-plaintiffs preferred an appeal in the court of Additional District Judge, No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, and the Appellate Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo vide order dated 22nd March, 2012. The petitioner-defendant, now being aggrieved, has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. Learned Advocate General Mr. The petitioner-defendant, now being aggrieved, has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. Learned Advocate General Mr. G.S. Bapna appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the very outset, canvassed that this High Court has consistently directed the petitioner-defendant to demolish all those unauthorized and illegal constructions taking place in the residential Mansarowar Colony, where the commercial activities are being undertaken in the residential houses. Learned Advocate General further canvassed that the respondents-plaintiffs no. 2 to 4 have been running a hotel in the residential house and they have already constructed 2nd and 3rd floor. The construction has still been going on unauthorizedly and despite there being repeated orders being rendered by this Court in plethora of cases, the learned Additional District Judge directed both the parties to maintain status quo. The order, per se, is illegal and contrary to the pronouncement of this High Court in umpteen cases. Hence, the status quo order passed by the Appellate Court should be quashed and the order dated 1st March, 2012 rendered by the trial court be affirmed. 4. E converso, the learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 4 contended that they have not raised any construction after the order dated 1st March, 2012 having been passed by the learned trial court. He further undertakes not to raise any new construction on the said plot. He further submits that the temporary injunction application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has still been pending and fixed for hearing final arguments on 14th May, 2012. Till then, the status quo order be continued. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the orders of both the courts below, it is noticed that the respondents-plaintiffs no. 2 to 4 have already running a hotel in the residential house, which clearly evinces that the respondents-plaintiffs have been undertaking the commercial activities in the residential area. 6. In the case of Manohar lal Bhardwaj versus State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12415/201), the co-ordinate Bench directed the Municipal Corporation to ensure that the commercial activities within the residential plots in Mansarowar Colony are being stopped. 6. In the case of Manohar lal Bhardwaj versus State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12415/201), the co-ordinate Bench directed the Municipal Corporation to ensure that the commercial activities within the residential plots in Mansarowar Colony are being stopped. The Court further observed that :- “The Municipal Corporation is further directed to file an affidavit before this Court with regard to the time frame in which the commercial activities from residential plots in Mansarovar will be completely stopped and also state therein as to the number of plots which have been seized for violation of law under the order of the Division Bench referred above.” 7. In view of the above order of the co-ordinate Bench and the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Suo Moto versus State (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4783/2004), the impugned order dated 22nd March, 2012, whereby the learned Additional District Judge directed both the parties to maintain status quo, is found to be totally perverse, unjust and contrary to the pronouncements made by this Court from time to time and thus, the impugned order dated 22nd March, 2012, deserves to be set aside. 8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 22nd March, 2012 stands set aside and the order dated 1st March, 2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, is affirmed. 9. Consequent upon the disposal of the writ petition, the stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.