Order : Aggrieved by order dated 19.08.2013 in Title Suit No. 71/2012 whereby, the petitions filed by the petitioners including the one filed on 25.04.2012 has been dismissed, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioners instituted Title Suit No. 71/2012 seeking declaration of their title over the suit property and confirmation of their possession with a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right, title and possession over Schedule ‘B’, ‘C’ & ‘D’ properties. The petitioners filed application dated 25.04.2012 seeking interim injunction against the defendants and for a direction to the defendants not to dispossess the petitioners or damage the suit property. However, during pendency of Title Suit No. 71/2012, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda issued order dated 26.06.2012 deputing the police force for removing the alleged encroachment. The petitioners immediately filed petition dated 29.06.2012 in the pending suit seeking interim protection and a direction upon the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda and the Circle Officer, Godda not to demolish the structures. However, on 29.06.2012 itself the respondent nos. 4 & 5 demolished the shops and a portion of residential house of the petitioners, which was the subject matter of B.P.L.E case. The petitioners immediately filed petition dated 02.07.2012 in the pending suit and they also approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4026/2012. The writ petition was disposed of on 19.12.2012 directing the Trial Court to dispose of the pending petitions filed by the petitioners within two months. The respondent-authorities were also directed for providing access to the residential premises of the petitioners. The petitioners moved an application on 07.01.2013 in the pending suit for a direction to the respondents for providing access to their residential premises. The petitioners also filed petition dated 08.08.2013 for issuing necessary direction. The Trial Court vide order dated 19.08.2013 dismissed all the petitions including the petitions dated 25.04.2012 and 07.01.2013 as not maintainable. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to order dated 19.12.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 4026/2012 and submits that the Trial Court was directed to decide application dated 25.04.2012 within two months and in the meantime, the respondent-authorities were also directed to provide access to the residential premises of the petitioners however, the direction issued by this Court was not complied with by respondent nos. 4 & 5 and ignoring the same, the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the petitions filed by the plaintiffs. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that in compliance of order dated 07.03.2011 in W.P.(PIL) No. 1076/2011, encroachments were removed. The suit schedule property was also removed by the authorities on 29.06.2012. There is no residential premises over the suit schedule property and therefore, there is no question of providing access to the plaintiffs to their residential premises. 6. From the materials brought on record, I find that C.W.J.C Nos. 10410, 10389 and 10387 of 1999(P) were filed against the orders passed in B.P.L.E cases, and vide order dated 01.02.2005, this Court stayed operation of the orders passed in B.P.L.E cases. However, the writ petitions were permitted to be withdrawn on 15.03.2012 with liberty to institute civil suit. This Court granted interim protection from dispossession till institution of the suit or till 30.04.2012. Thereafter, the petitioners instituted Title Suit No. 71/2012 and along with the suit they filed a petition on 25.04.2012 for interim protection. It is not in dispute that this Court vide order dated 19.12.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 4026/2012 directed the respondent-authorities to provide access to the petitioners to their residential premises. In the present proceeding the respondents have admitted that over Plot No. 698 a temporary shed was constructed. They have denied that on the disputed property the petitioners had built a residential house. The respondents have also admitted that there is a boundary wall and irongate constructed by the Government and the irongate has been closed. Before the Trial Court the defendants asserted that on 29.06.2012 encroachment over the suit schedule land was removed. The petitioners have come up with a specific case that there was a structure over the suit schedule property. I find that though the respondents admitted that a temporary shed was constructed over Plot No. 698, they have denied that there was a residential house over the suit land. The Trial Court has dismissed application dated 25.04.2012 and other petitions including the one filed on 07.01.2013 holding that the applications are not maintainable. Merely because the defendants asserted that there is no structure existing over the suit land, the application for interim injunction and/or seeking direction upon the defendants/respondents, cannot be dismissed as not maintainable. The Trial Court has dismissed application dated 25.04.2012 and other petitions including the one filed on 07.01.2013 holding that the applications are not maintainable. Merely because the defendants asserted that there is no structure existing over the suit land, the application for interim injunction and/or seeking direction upon the defendants/respondents, cannot be dismissed as not maintainable. The Trial Court has committed serious error in law in dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioners as not maintainable. Moreover, in view of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4026/2012 and the disputed facts pleaded by the parties, the Trial Court should have taken a report from a Pleader Commissioner. 7. Considering the above facts, the impugned order dated 19.08.2013 is, hereby, set aside. The Trial Court is directed to hear applications dated 25.04.2012 and 07.01.2013, afresh. It appears that vide order dated 05.09.2013, the parties were permitted to file documents and the suit was posted for settlement of the issues. The Trial Court is, therefore, directed to consider the documentary evidence produced by the parties and, if necessary, to get a report from a Pleader Commissioner before deciding applications dated 25.04.2012 and 07.01.2013. 8. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.