B premises. Upon motion in presence of the present learned counsel for the opposite parties, status quo with respect to the nature of the suit land was directed to be maintained by both the parties. The opposite parties filed written objection supported by an affidavit. In the said objection, it is submitted that the present opposite parties have no plan to raise any permanent structure over the Schedule B land whereupon the suit house was standing. In the month of January due to the marriage ceremony of the opposite party No. 1(d) a temporary pandal was raised and it was only on 22.12.2018, while the opposite parties invited the present counsel for the marriage of opposite party No.1(d) it came to the knowledge about the interim order passed in this petition. The reason for carrying out the temporary nature of construction over the Schedule B premises are explained which is acceptable to this Court. Moreover, in the objection supported by an affidavit it is stated that the opposite parties No.1(a) to 1(d), 3(a) and 3(b) have no plan to carry out any permanent structure over the suit land which is reiterated by Mr. Mour.
