1. ' This order is to be read in continuation of my Order dated 13-3-1984. In the aforesaid order while directing the parties to maintain statuesque I had appointed two Engineers one from the plaintiff corporation and one from Defendant No,1 to prepare a joint survey of the disputed area and in accordance with my order they have submitted joint survey sketch along with their respective reports. It is not necessary here to refer to the respective reports submitted by the two Commissioners as my main object for appointing the two Commissioners was, firstly, to find out if the total area claimed by the plaintiff i.e, 30,025 sq. yds. as shown in the site plan issued in the year 1967 is there or not. The other object of appointing these Commissioners was to find out if the disputed petrol pump is located within the area agreed to be allotted to the plaintiff by the Defendant No,l, According to the joint sketch submitted by the Commissioners the Petrol Pump is shown in Yellow colour and according to the learned counsel for the parties the total area under allotment for this Petrol Pump is 1,333 sq. yds. On both sides of the Petrol Pump there is open land which is shown in green and the whole area namely the green and the yellow area measures about 2,765 sq.yds. According to the report of the Commissioners and the joint sketch submitted by them the total area at site shown as A, B, C, Cl, C2, L and 0 which corresponds to the original site plan issued by defendant No,1 in favour of the plaintiff in 1967 'comes to 33,897.51 sq.yds. The total area of the portion "L" shown in the joint sketch including disputed petrol pump comes to 2,765 sq.yds. It is an admitted position that the total area agreed to be allotted to the plaintiff by defendant No,1 was 30,025 sq.yds only and therefore admittedly at the site there is an excess area of 3,872 sq.yds. Out of this excess area the area under portion "L" comes to 2,765 sq.yds only, which also includes the disputed petrol pump partly constructed by defendants Nos.2 and 3. 1 have already granted ad interim injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo on 13-3-1984. At the hearing of the application both defendants Nos.2 and 3 firstly stated before me that in case it is found at the trial of the suit that the area allotted to the defendant No,2 was included within the area proposed to be allotted by the defendant No,1 to the plaintiff and that defendant No,2 was not entitled to its allotment, he will remove the construction if any raised by them without claiming any compensation or without claiming any benefit for that reason. The defendant No,1 also filed a written undertaking before me during the course of the arguments undertaking that they will not allot or part with any portion of the vacant land out of disputed area to any person until further ordeRs, In these circum stances I am of the view, that the interest of plaintiff in the suit can be fully served by "recording the undertaking offered by defendants Nos.1 to 3. I accordingly record the undertaking offered by defendants Nos.1 to 3 before me during the course of hearing and modify the ad interim order dated 13-3-1984 as follows:- The defendant No,1 as undertaken by them will not allot or part with possession of any portion of vacant, land shown in the joint sketch "X" until further order of the Court. The defandants Nos.2 and 3 may complete construction of petrol pump building on an area of 1,333 sq.yds at their own risk "and costs and they will remove the construction so put up by them if the decision in the case goes against them without claiming any compensation for the construction or advantage for reason of the said construction. Both the applications namely, C.M.A. No,795/84, 1406/84 and the Commissioners reports, are disposed of accordingly.