Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 55 (KAR)

H. C. Narayana Reddy v. G. Prasad Reddy

2016-01-14

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2016
ORDER : Budihal R.B., J. 1. Though the matter is listed for the Orders, by the consent of learned Advocates appearing for both the parties it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This is the writ petition filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos. 1 to 5 challenging the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the trial Court in O.S. No. 876/2015 on the application I.A. No. 3 filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. By the said application the Court below passed the order giving police protection to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff and the Court below directed the parties to maintain the status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property. Said order has been challenged by the writ petitioners in this writ petition. 3. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance against the defendants for specific enforcement of the agreement of sale, which was relied upon by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in the said suit. Suit was filed during the vacation with an application I.A. No. 1 to take up the matter during vacation. Same was considered and allowed. Plaintiff also filed two (2) applications i.e., I.A. Nos. 2 and 3. Application - I.A. No. 2 was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for the grant of temporary injunction to restrain defendants and the people coming under him from dispossessing/alienating the suit schedule property i.e., Schedule 'A' and 13' property without due process of law. Another application - I.A. No. 3 was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for the grant of injunction to restrain the defendants and the people coming under them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. 4. The vacation Court passed the order on the first application and ordered to maintain the status-quo. Subsequently, the counsel for the plaintiff advanced the matter and notice of the application was ordered to be served on the other side. Again the matter was taken on 01.12.2015 and the Court passed the impugned order giving police protection to the plaintiff to maintain the status-quo in respect of construction work said to be going on over the suit schedule property. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and also learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. 6. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and also learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners during the course of his arguments made the submission that there is no specific order by the trial Court to restrain the defendants from proceeding with the construction over the suit schedule property. Learned counsel further made the submission that "status-quo" though the word is used by the trial Court while considering the application not to alienate the suit schedule property, submits that "status-quo" means that reference to relief sought for in the application not to alienate and to maintain the status-quo, and it has no reference insofar as the construction is concerned. Hence, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order basing on the order passed on the application giving police protection in favour of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff itself is illegal and is not maintainable in law. Hence, the learned counsel submitted to allow the writ petition and to set aside the order passed by the trial Court, which is challenged in this writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff during the course of his arguments submitted that the status quo order has been passed by the trial Court and while passing such order, the Court used the word "status-quo" not alienating the suit schedule property. Hence, it is the interpretation of the learned Senior Counsel that if it was only the order not to alienate, then it is not necessary for the trial Court to use the word even "status-quo" also. Hence, learned Senior Counsel submitted that it clearly goes to show that status quo in respect of the property is also to be maintained apart from non-alienating the suit schedule property. Learned Senior Counsel further made the submission that it is a matter of interpretation and with what understanding or the intention of the said words, which is used, it is only the trial Court which has to explain and this Court cannot sit in an appeal over such interpretation. Hence, learned senior counsel submitted that when the respondent No. 1/plaintiff has paid huge amount of Rs. Hence, learned senior counsel submitted that when the respondent No. 1/plaintiff has paid huge amount of Rs. 3,47,00,000/- the entire sale consideration amount has been already paid to the vendor i.e., defendants and if during the pendency of the suit if it is going to be alienated or the construction is going to be made over the property, it will lead to multiplicity of the proceedings and it will also cause injustice to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. Hence, he submitted that there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the Court below directing the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the suit property, so also subsequently passing the order giving the police protection in maintaining the status-quo over the suit schedule property. Hence, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the writ petition has no merit and same has to be rejected. 8. Perused the grounds urged in the writ petition and impugned order passed by the trial Court. The undisputed facts are, suit was filed during the vacation Court for specific performance of the agreement of sale. Basing on the suit agreement, two (2) applications were also moved by the plaintiff and on one application, the Court has ordered the ex-parte order to maintain the status-quo by not alienating the suit schedule property. Plaintiff was also directed to comply the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3A of CPC by sending the copies to the other side and subsequently, the matter was again advanced and the impugned order has been passed by the trial Court. The order passed by the trial Court was the ex-parte order and in this regard the defendants have to appear in the matter and have to file their objection statement and the written statement, which is yet to be done. On the basis of the ex-parte injunction order, the trial Court also considered the application and ordered for police protection to the plaintiff. Unless and until the defendants file their objection statement to the said application and unless and until the application is heard and disposed off on merits, the question of allowing the application and providing the police protection does not arise at all. Unless and until the defendants file their objection statement to the said application and unless and until the application is heard and disposed off on merits, the question of allowing the application and providing the police protection does not arise at all. So far as other merits of the case is concerned, as the application is to be heard by the trial Court and it has to be disposed of on merits, which is pending before the trial Court, this Court is not going to touch the merits of the case, so as to express any opinion in this regard, as otherwise it will prejudice to either of the parties. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER "(i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the trial Court in O.S. No. 876/2015 on the application - I.A. No. 3 filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff seeking police protection, is hereby set aside. (iii) Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 16.01.2016 and they have to submit their say in the matter and the trial Court has to take up this matter on priority basis and dispose of the said application as early as possible not later than ten (10) days from 16.01.2016."