JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant herein is Defendant in OS No.7204/2016, which is pending on the file of the XLIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru. That suit has been filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or anybody claiming under him from interfering with the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property as stated in the plaint reads as under: SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing Corporation No.127/16, PID No.40-179-127/16, situated at 4th Cross, Maruthinagar, Attiguppe Sub Division, Bangalore (formerly BDA Site No.16, situated at 1st Stage, 4th Block, Nagarabhavi Extension, Bangalore), within the revenue administrative jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike together with the structures and construction in progress and including all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereto and site measuring: East to West : 18.80 Meters North to South : 17 Meters And bounded as follows: East by : Remaining land in same Survey Number (Private Property) West by : Site No.17 North by : Remaining land in same Survey Number (Private Property) South by : Road Along with the plaint, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [CPC] was filed by the plaintiff seeking an interim order of injunction against the defendant pending disposal of the suit. By the impugned order dated 3.11.2016, said application has been allowed in the following terms: (i). That, in the event of successful of defendant and others in the proceedings of W.A.No.782/2015, the plaintiff-company shall demolish the ongoing construction at its own cost. (ii) That the plaintiff-company shall proceed as per the order of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka to be passed in W.A.No.782/2015. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. Appellant’s Counsel contended that the appellant herein is the power of attorney holder for certain land owners who had filed Writ Petition No.36515/2002 and connected writ petitions before this Court seeking a writ of certiorari in respect of impugned modified layout plan approved by the Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] in respect of certain sites and alternatively, to declare that the scheme of the BDA in respect of Sy. No.48/5 [new No.129] of Nagarabhavi Village, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 4 acres 4 guntas had lapsed. No.48/5 [new No.129] of Nagarabhavi Village, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 4 acres 4 guntas had lapsed. That writ petition was dismissed, against which Writ Appeal No.782/2015 has been filed by the appellant and that on 6.4.2016, there is an interim order directing maintenance of status quo in relation to the property in dispute during the pendency of the application for condonation of delay in filing the said writ appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore, contended that the trial court could not have permitted the respondent-plaintiff to continue with the construction and to utilize the said property [site No.16 i.e., suit schedule site] and also by observing that the plaintiff-company shall proceed as per the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.782/2015. He further submitted that the order of status quo is in respect of the entire extent of Sy. No.129 and that the suit schedule site bearing No.16 is part of Sy. No.129 and therefore the order of the Division Bench of this Court granting status quo could not have been ignored by the trial Court while permitting respondent-plaintiff herein to put up construction on the suit schedule site. He, hence contended that the impugned order may be set aside by allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supported the impugned order and contended that on a bare perusal of the prayers made by the appellant in Writ Petition No.36515/2012, would clearly indicate that site No.16 is not incorporated in that writ petition and that the Division Bench has held that status quo may be maintained in respect of the property in dispute which is restricted to only site Nos.4 to 6, 9 to 14 and does not affect the suit schedule site. Even then, the Trial Court while permitting the respondent to put up construction has put the respondent on terms not only to demolish the construction having regard to the decision to be taken in Writ Appeal No.782/2015, but also to comply with the said decision. Therefore, the interest of the appellant have been sufficiently protected and that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that in respect of Sy. Therefore, the interest of the appellant have been sufficiently protected and that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that in respect of Sy. No.129, the appellant herein had preferred Writ Petition No.36515/2012 and on being unsuccessful in the said writ petition which was filed on behalf of certain land owners, Writ Appeal No.782/2015 has been preferred. Even on a cursory glance of the material on record, it is noted that site No.16 which is the suit schedule site is not expressly referred to in the prayers made in the writ petition which expressly refers to only site Nos. 4 to 6, 9 to 14. Even then, the appellant herein has sought for a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed. Therefore, being unsuccessful in the writ petition, appellant herein has preferred writ appeal No.782/2015. In the writ appeal, the order dated 6.4.2016 passed by the Division Bench reads as under: “Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay. Parties are directed to maintain status quo as of today, in relation to the property in dispute during the pendency of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.” 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the expression ‘in relation to the property in dispute’ must refer only to the site numbers expressly mentioned in the memorandum of writ petition out of which the writ appeal arise and therefore cannot have any reference to the suit schedule site No.16. 7. However, the said submission is controverted by learned Counsel for the appellant by contending that when the acquisition with regard to Sy. No.129 is assailed, it would have a reference or a bearing on all the sites formed in that survey number. Of course, there is a controversy as to whether site No.16 is part of Sy. No.129 or not. That is a matter to be determined in the proceedings pending before the trial Court, as well as before the Division Bench in the writ appeal. Be that as it may, the Trial Court having noted the fact that the writ appeal is pending in regard to Sy. No.129 and on expressing prima facie opinion that suit schedule site i.e., site No.16 may also be part of Sy. Be that as it may, the Trial Court having noted the fact that the writ appeal is pending in regard to Sy. No.129 and on expressing prima facie opinion that suit schedule site i.e., site No.16 may also be part of Sy. No.129 has been cautious enough to put the respondent-plaintiff on terms while allowing the plaintiff-company to continue carrying on the construction on the said site. In fact, the respondent-plaintiff has been directed to demolish the construction at its own cost in the event the decision of this Court in the writ appeal is decided in favour of the appellant herein [i.e., in writ appeal No.782/2015]. On the strength of the interim order granted by the Division Bench, possibly the appellant was trying to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule site. It is in that light that the plaintiff has approached the trial Court seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the appellant and sought for an interlocutory injunction pending disposal of the suit. When the trial Court has taken note of the pendency of the writ appeal and has put the respondent-plaintiff on terms, while directing the defendant not to interfere with the suit schedule site, I do not think that the appellant can contend that its right, title and interest has in any way been prejudiced. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. There is no merit in the appeal. 8. Appeal is hence dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs. 9. Any observation made during the course of this Judgment is only for the purpose of considering the correctness of the impugned order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. In view of dismissal of the appeal, IA No.1/2017 also stands dismissed.