Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 612 (RAJ)

Surta Ram v. Hari Ram

2016-05-03

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders dated 28.3.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 3, Bikaner and the order dated 7.8.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC and Counter T.I. filed by the petitioner have been partly accepted and status quo regarding the suit property has been directed to be maintained and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected respectively. 2. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner based on a patta dated 20.4.1959. The respondent resisted the suit based on patta dated 24.12.1975 and claimed that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property. 3. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed and the petitioner filed a Counter T.I. Application. 4. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that both the parties had prima facie case in their favour and at the said stage, it could not be determined as to who was in possession and consequently, directed both the parties to maintain status quo. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) CPC. The appellate court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that looking to the nature of the suit and conflicting claims made by the parties, the order passed by the trial court does not require any interference and consequently, dismissed the appeal. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts committed error in granting the status quo order in favour of the respondent, inasmuch as, in previous proceedings way-back in the year 1982, the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff was found to be doubtful by the trial court, which order was upheld by the first appellate court and the second appeal was also dismissed and therefore, there was no reason for the courts below to order for maintenance of status quo as the land in question is owned by the petitioner based on the patta issued in the year 1975 and he cannot be restrained from putting the land in question to appropriate use. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the orders impugned passed by the two courts below. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the orders impugned passed by the two courts below. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The first appellate court while deciding the appeal, noticing the decisions qua the patta claimed to be in favour of the plaintiff also came to the conclusion that even the patta issued to the petitioner does not match with the boundaries as indicated regarding the disputed plot and therefore, the same was required to be determined after the parties had led their evidence. It further came to the conclusion that the status of possession was also not very clear and therefore, the grant of order to maintain status quo was justified in the circumstances of the case. 10. The order passed by the first appellate court in the circumstances as noticed pertaining to the status of the patta cannot be faulted as it is only after the determination takes place after evidence is led by the parties that the issues can be properly determined and till such time, the maintenance of status quo is a most reasonable order, which could be passed in the circumstances of the case. 11. In view thereof, no interference is called for in the orders impugned. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, looking to the circumstances of the case and the nature of the dispute, the trial court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of twelve months from the date a certified copy of this order be placed before the trial court.