Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1206 (JHR)

Durga Jha v. Dhuma Mahto @ Shuma Teli

2002-11-29

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties inspite of service of notice. 2. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 15.7.2002 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, VIIIth, Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No. 54 of 1998 whereby he has dismissed the appeal but granted relief to the plaintiff- opposite parties which was sought for in the application for the grant of injunction. 3. The plaintiff filed title suit No. 86 of 1990 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 is that the authorities of Dhanbad Municipality and the Circle Officer, Dhanbad have demolished some portion of southern side of the boundary wall of the suit land despite objection made by the plaintiff. In the said suit an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC was filed for temporary injunction alleging that the defendants have dumped building materials for construction over the suit land and thereby they wanted to change the nature and character of the suit land and hence defendant No. 1 and/or of his agents may be restrained from making any construction on the suit land. 4. Private defendant No. 1 appeared and file show-cause stating inter alia that the injunction petition is not maintainable and the order of status quo has been passed without hearing him. The case of the defendant is that he purchased the suit land with house by registered sale deed in the year 1988 and since then he is coming in possession of the suit land. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the defendant has neither prima facie case for grant of injunction nor balance of convenience lies in his favour. He further held that no question of irreparable loss on the part of the plaintiff arises. The learned Court has also pointed out in the impugned order that the suit was taken up for hearing on 10.7.1996 after the pleadings were completed but the plaintiff has been taking unnecessary adjournments since then for the production of his witnesses. In this view the application for grant of injunction was rejected. 6. The learned Court has also pointed out in the impugned order that the suit was taken up for hearing on 10.7.1996 after the pleadings were completed but the plaintiff has been taking unnecessary adjournments since then for the production of his witnesses. In this view the application for grant of injunction was rejected. 6. Aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff filed appeal being miscellaneous appeal No. 54 of 1988 which was finally heard by the 8th Additional District Judge. Dhanbad. The appellate Court affirmed the finding of the sub-judge and held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner-defendant No. 2 and therefore there was no occasion for grant of injunction. However while dismissing the appeal the learned appellate Court observed as follows : "But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the nature and character of the suit land should not be altered or changed as it existed today and therefore status quo should be maintained by both the parties and both the parties are directed not to change the nature of the suit land. The plaintiff is further directed to get the suit land physically verified to know exactly the present status of the suit land. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The petition for injunction is refused, but the parties are directed to maintain status quo till the adjudication of the suit. 7. From perusal of the observations made by the appellate Court it appears that it granted relief of status quo till the final disposal of the suit. It appears that the learned appellate Court is not fully conversant with the law because it is settled law that even for grant of status quo, the Court has to record a finding recording prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury caused to the party seeking injunction. The relief of status quo is as good an injunction. Therefore while dismissing of the appeal there was no question of grant of status quo and directing the plaintiff to physically verify the suit land. Such direction is absolutely unknown to law. It was expected that the 8th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad before passing the impugned order should have gone through at least the settled principles of law in the matter of grant of injunction. 8. Such direction is absolutely unknown to law. It was expected that the 8th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad before passing the impugned order should have gone through at least the settled principles of law in the matter of grant of injunction. 8. For the aforesaid reasons this civil revision application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad, so far as relates to grant of status quo and the direction to the plaintiff to verify the suit property, is set aside.