JUDGMENT 1. The parties in a Review Petition filed under Section 114(a) r/w OrderXLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are before this Court. The respondent instituted O.S.No.593 of 2019 before the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Cherthala seeking declaration of his right of easement over the plaint schedule property. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed Ext.P1 application under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC seeking withdrawal of the suit. The trial Court allowed the application as per Ext.P2 order and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. 2. The plaintiff, after a year, filed Ext.P3 application seeking review of the order dismissing the suit as withdrawn, along with Ext.P5 to condone the delay of 366 days in preferring the review petition. Ext.P7 application was filed by the plaintiff to enable him to adduce evidence along with the evidence in review petition. The plaintiff also filed Ext.P10 application seeking interim injunction to restrain the defendant from preventing the user of the way in question. Ext.P13, Commission application was also filed by the plaintiff. 3. The trial Court allowed Ext.P7 application and posted the application seeking condonation of delay for evidence, as per Ext.P9 order. In the application seeking interim injunction [Ext.P10], the trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the properties as per Ext.P12 order. The Court below also issued a Commission to conduct a local investigation in the property. These orders are under challenge in this Original Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submitted that the trial Court committed an illegality in granting an interim relief directing the parties to maintain status quo without considering the application seeking condonation of delay and admitting the review petition. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the trial Court was compelled to pass the interim order to preserve the subject matter. It is submitted that the trial Court has exercised its inherent power in granting the interim orders. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Director of Police Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi v. P.M. Ramalingam [ 2009(1) SCC 193 ] to contend that the Court below should not have issued the interim order of status quo without admitting the review petition, after condoning the delay. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Director of Police Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi v. P.M. Ramalingam [ 2009(1) SCC 193 ] to contend that the Court below should not have issued the interim order of status quo without admitting the review petition, after condoning the delay. In Director of Police Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi [ 2009 (1) SCC 193 ] the Supreme Court held thus:- “9.As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, the High Court could not have passed the interim order which virtually means allowing the review petition, without deciding the question of maintainability of the review petition. Such a course is not permissible in law.” 8. The review petition was not admitted. The Court below posted the application to condone the delay in filing the review petition to another date for taking evidence. Therefore, the interim order granted by the trial Court is without jurisdiction. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per Ext. P15 order, the Commissioner visited the property and prepared a mahazar and report narrating the nature of the property on the date of his visit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner has not filed any report before the Court. 10. In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the considered view that Ext.P12 order is liable to be set aside. I do so. 11. Accordingly, the Original Petition is disposed of with the following directions:- The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 10.03.2025. The Court below is directed to consider I.A.No.1/2021, the petition seeking condonation of delay and dispose of the same within three weeks from 10.03.2025, the date scheduled for appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to maintain status quo as reported by the Commissioner till the disposal of the application seeking condonation of delay. I.A.No.5/2021 is remitted back to the trial Court. The trial Court is at liberty to consider same in accordance with law.