JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present petitioner, being the plaintiff-petitioner in I.A. No. 36/2006 arising out of C.S. No. 40/2006 of the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Aul and respondent No. 1 in F.A.O. No. 40/2012 of the court of District Judge, Kendrapra, assails the judgment dated 17.6.2013 passed by learned District Judge, Kendrapara in the aforesaid F.A.O. allowing the appeal in part and directing the parties to maintain status quo as directed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) as per the order dated 10.7.2012 in the foresaid I.A. 2. The present petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for partition and perpetual injunction against the defendants-opposite parties. The suit land measuring Ac.2.18 decs. pertaining to Hal Khata Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 135 of Mouza- Bada Anko. It is averred by the plaintiff that the suit land is the purchased land of both the parties and their names have been jointly recorded in the Major Settlement Record of Rights. It is further averred that the suit land has not been partitioned by metes and bounds between the parties. 3. The further case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that Hal Plot No. 775 measuring Ac.0.32 decs. under Hal Khata No. 17 and Hal Plot No. 777 measuring Ac.0.26 decimals under Hal Khata No. 16 was agricultural land and the kisam was "Bioli". It is averred that the plaintiff and defendants have converted the said agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose such as "Ghara Bari" and thereafter both the parties have constructed puca building containing four rooms and one thatch house containing two rooms over a portion of Hal Plot Nos. 665 and 777. The said puca rooms have been completed upto roof level, but the roof is not yet cast. The cause of action arose when the defendants have threatened to dispossess the plaintiff-petitioner from the suit land. Hence an interim application was filed seeking injunction. 4. The defendant-opposite parties, filed their objection to the interim application. They plead that the suit land is their purchased land and the names of the parties have been recorded jointly in the Major Settlement R.O.R. The defendant-opposite parties have not disputed the averments made in the plaint that the suit land has not been partitioned by metes and bounds between the parties. They plead that the suit land is their purchased land and the names of the parties have been recorded jointly in the Major Settlement R.O.R. The defendant-opposite parties have not disputed the averments made in the plaint that the suit land has not been partitioned by metes and bounds between the parties. The defendant-opposite parties have averred that both the parties have purchased Ac.0.34 decimals 8 links from different persons out of Hal Plot No. 777 but during the Major Settlement operation the area of Hal Plot No. 777 has been reduced and recorded as Ac.0.26 decimals. 5. The defendant-opposite parties have specifically pleaded that defendant-opposite party No. 1 has filed O.L.R. Case No. 258 of 2004 u/s 8(A) of the OLR Act and the learned Tahasildar by an order dated 28.10.2004 allowed the conversion in favour of defendant-opposite party No. 1 in respect of Ac.0.023 decs. out of Ac.0.32 decs. appertaining to Plot No. 775 under Hal Khata No. 17 and Ac.0.07 decs. out of Ac.0.26 decs. appertaining to Hal Plot No. 777 under Hal Khata No. 16 and defendant-opposite party No. 1 executed a lease agreement for the entire Ac.0.10 decimals of land with the Tahasildar Aul on 1.12.2004 and paid a premium of Rs. 3030/-to the Government. Since then defendant-opposite party No. 1 has been paying rent to the Government. 6. The further case of the defendant-opposite parties is that defendant-opposite party No. 1 has constructed four roomed puca building and three roomed thatch house over a portion of Hal Plot No. 777/3161 and 775/3160 under Hal Jamabandi Khata No. 794/59 out of his own income and as such the plaintiff-petitioner cannot restrain defendant-opposite party No. 1 from completing the half constructed puca building standing over a portion of Hal Plot Nos. 775 and 777 measuring in Total Ac.0.10 decs. The defendant-opposite party No. 1 has filed an affidavit in the original suit pleading therein that he may be allowed to cast roof of the puca building and that he will not claim any equity, if the said portion of the land will fall to the share of any other co-sharer in the final adjudication of the suit. Hence the defendant-opposite parties pray for dismissal of the interim application. Hence the defendant-opposite parties pray for dismissal of the interim application. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Aul after hearing parties and perusing the documents filed in the case has observed that issues regarding conversion of agricultural land to homestead land and possession of the parties over the suit land can be resolved at the final disposal of the suit. The trial court also held that the Pleader Commissioner reported regarding construction of puca building up to roof level but did not mention as to who constructed the said building out of whose money. The prayer of the defendant-opposite arty No. 1 to permit him to cast roof of the building has been rejected as the same may lead to multiplicity of litigation. The trial court directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit land till disposal of the original suit. 7. Learned District Judge relying upon the reported case of Khirod Prasad Routray Vrs. Smt. Satyabhama Routray and others; 1986(II) OLR (NOC) 22 and Graftek Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Shri Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, held that a half constructed house is beneficial to no party and the balance of convenience lies in completion of the construction. The house in dispute is likely to be dilapidated in course of time if allowed to be exposed to the rain and sun and the roof needs to be cast early for protection of the building till disposal of the original suit. At the same time, considering the ill-feeling, both the parties can not be allowed to cast the roof of the building. 8. The trial court further held that the defendant-opposite party No. 1 has given an undertaking in he original suit that he will not claim any equity in case the house will fall to the share of any other co-sharer in the partition. So considering the undertaking already given by defendant-opposite party No. 1, learned District Judge allowed defendant-opposite party No. 1 to cast the roof of the half constructed house on such conditions. Learned District Judge directed that the roof of the puca house will be made in presence of a Pleader Commissioner to be appointed by the trial court on payment of fees to be decided by the court below to be paid by the defendant-opposite party No. 1. Learned District Judge directed that the roof of the puca house will be made in presence of a Pleader Commissioner to be appointed by the trial court on payment of fees to be decided by the court below to be paid by the defendant-opposite party No. 1. The pleader Commissioner will remain present through out the day during casting of the roof of the house and he will ascertain from the defendant-opposite party No. 1 regarding purchase of different materials for the casting of the roof and will verify at the spot regarding proper utilization of the same. The cost of centering work to be assessed by the commissioner taking into consideration on the present local charges. The Pleader Commissioner shall submit a report to the court below soon after the casting of the roof indicating the total extent of material used and total cost of such materials including centering cost and labour charges. It was further directed that the trial court thereafter shall examine the cost and if necessary to take evidence, finalize the total amount and will direct respondent No. 1-the present petitioner to pay half of such amount to the appellant-opposite party No. 1 within one month of the order. If half of such amount as fixed by the court is not paid within the time, then the same fact will be taken into consideration at the time of allotment of share during final decree proceeding. In such view of the matter the appeal was disposed of. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the observations and the conditions fixed by the trial court are contrary to the findings recorded by himself. It is further argued that the learned District Judge has suo motu appointed a Pleader Commissioner in absence of any petition filed by defendant No. 1 which shows the illegality committed in the impugned order. It is stated that the condition fixed in para-22 of the impugned order directing the Pleader Commissioner with regard to total extent of materials used, total cost of material including centering cost and labour charges are the extraneous consideration. The further condition fixed in the said paragraph that the respondent No. 1 is to pay half of such amount within one month of the order is harassment to the plaintiff-petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the reported case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vs. The further condition fixed in the said paragraph that the respondent No. 1 is to pay half of such amount within one month of the order is harassment to the plaintiff-petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the reported case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass, wherein the Supreme Court held that the court should not permit the nature of the property being changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss of damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The observations made in the case relates to alienation of the property to 3rd party and this is not applicable to the present case. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the reported case of Saraswati Barik and others Vrs. Rama Chandra Rout and others; 1988 (II) OLR-23; wherein a Misc. Case for temporary injunction was filed which was dismissed for default. At later stage another petition for injunction was filed and interim order was passed, but within the gap period defendant made some construction. It was held that the conduct of defendant is to defeat the appeal to be filed by the plaintiff. In such case direction was given to the defendant to remove the construction. The facts of the case are distinguishable and therefore the ratio is not applicable to the present case. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the reported case of Narayan Bisoi and Another Vs. Raghunath Bisoi, ; wherein status quo was directed to be maintained by the parties on the ground that a party who makes valuable construction by spending a huge amount naturally claims the constructed portion to his share and, thereby, the other co-sharers are put to difficulties in the sense that either their shares are truncated or they have to remain satisfied by getting some compensation which may not be adequate. This observation made by the Court is not applicable to the present case as the defendant-opposite party has given undertaking to the effect that he will not claim equity in case the house will fall to the share of any other co-sharer in the partition. So that the findings recorded in the case is not applicable to the present case. 13. So that the findings recorded in the case is not applicable to the present case. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the reported case of Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary and Others Vs. Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar and Others, ; wherein status quo order was to be passed. Injunction order restraining the defendant from putting up construction on entire land would be justified as situation might become irreversible by the time dispute is decided if injunction is not granted. On the same light, the ratio is not applicable to the present case in view of the undertaking given by the defendants in this case. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 relies upon the reported case of ECE Industries Limited Vs. S.P. Real Estate Developers P. Ltd. and Another, ; wherein it has been held if ultimately, the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff is decreed, he can be compensated in damages or the respondent-defendants may be directed to pull down the construction and deliver vacant possession to the appellant-plaintiff when no equity can be claimed for such construction by the respondent-defendants. On the other hand, if at this stage, an order of injunction is granted against the respondent-defendants from proceeding with further construction in the suit property, it will undoubtedly destroy the constructions already made by the respondent-defendants and the respondent-defendants will suffer irreparable loss and injury for not allowing them to make construction on the suit property. Coupled with the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Graftek Pvt. Ltd. and others Vrs Sri Lord Lingaraj Mohaprabhu Bije, Bhubaneswa (supra) is taken into consideration and it is held that a half construction house is beneficial to no party and the balance of convenience lies in completion of the construction. The house in dispute is likely to be dilapidated in course of time if allowed to be exposed to the rain and sun and the roof needs to be cast early for protection of the building till disposal of the original suit. 15. From this, it is seen that the plaintiff himself at paragraph-5 of the suit has stated that the plaintiff and defendants have converted the said plot as "Gharabari" and both the plaintiff and defendants have constructed four number of residential puca building over some portion of the suit Hal Plot Nos. 15. From this, it is seen that the plaintiff himself at paragraph-5 of the suit has stated that the plaintiff and defendants have converted the said plot as "Gharabari" and both the plaintiff and defendants have constructed four number of residential puca building over some portion of the suit Hal Plot Nos. 777 and 775 middle point by spending huge money and labour in the year 1998. The said puca residential building has been completed up to roof level and roof has not been cast. 16. In that view of the matter, if the roof is not cast by opposite party No. 1 then it will result in a loss to both the plaintiff and defendants. So this Court holds that the order passed by learned District Judge is in fact in interest of the substantial justice. In such case this Court stays its hands from invoking in the writ of certiorari to set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge. 17. With such observation, this Court holds that the order dated 17.6.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Kendrapara in F.A.O. No. 40.2012 requires no interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed