JUDGMENT Hemant Chandangoudar, J. - Appellants have filed O.S.No.9473/2020 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 2. Along with plaint, the appellants had filed an application in I.A.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. The trial Court, vide order dated 11.06.2020 has dismissed the application. Taking exception to the same, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that without there being an order of confirmation under Section 321(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short Act ) the defendants are trying to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also there is a threat of demolition of suit schedule property. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the confirmation order under Section 321(3) of the Act has been passed way back on 07.03.2019 and same has been served on plaintiffs. He has produced the copy of the order and also receipt for having dispatched the notice to the plaintiffs. 5. Examined the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. On perusal, it indicates that the notice has been issued by the defendants, however, no acknowledgment is produced for having served notice on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs apprehension that the defendants may demolish the suit schedule property seems to be bonafide. 7. The order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act the same cannot be gone in the suit. Hence, liberty is reserved to the plaintiffs to challenge the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act in accordance with law before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 443(A) of the Act within a period of four weeks from today. 8. Till consideration of the application for stay filed by the plaintiffs along with appeal, in the interest of justice, parties are directed to maintain status-quo till then. 9. Interim protection granted is only for limited purpose so as to enable the plaintiffs to file an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and till consideration of the application for stay by the Tribunal. 10. The Tribunal is at liberty to consider the case on merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Appeal is accordingly disposed of .