Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 83 (MP)

Ratnamala Raje (Smt. ) @ Chhote Lal v. Bhure

2016-02-03

SHEEL NAGU

body2016
ORDER 1. The present civil revision filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assails the order passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.2/2009 filed under Order 43 rule 1(r) of CPC, by the petitioner herein against the order dated 20.12.2008 of the trial Court passed in MJC No.12/2003 declining to accept the application of the petitioner filed under Order 39 rule 2(A) of CPC for taking action against breach of temporary injunction order dated 7.5.2003. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. The respondents/plaintiffs preferred civil suit for declaratory decree of ownership and permanent injunction in regard to a piece of land. While entertaining the suit, the trial Court by interlocutory order dated 7.5.2003 directed the rival parties to maintain status quo, without specifying that in what respect and to what extent the status quo is to be maintained. 4. The present petitioner/defendant preferred an application under Order 39 rule 2(A) of CPC, alleging disobedience of the abovesaid order of status quo contending that on 8.5.2003 the plaintiffs have demolished the wall which was standing on the suit property when the status quo order was passed. The trial Court examined various witnesses and after placing reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another v. Praveen Kumar Singh [( AIR 2006 SC 1474 )] held that since the status quo order dated 7.5.2003 did not specify in clear terms that in what respect and to what extent the status quo is to be maintained, the said order of status quo does not fall within the category of temporary injunction and as a necessary consequence the trial Court held that there is no question of invoking rule 2(A) of Order 39 for the alleged disobedience. The relevant portion of the decision of the apex Court is reproduced below :- “The appellant in a suit for declaration of his status as tenant had applied for interim injunction against his dispossession pending suit. The Court refused to grant ad interim ex parte order of injunction. An appeal was filed against such refusal. The appellate Court passed an order of status quo without indicating what the status quo was. The order was improper. The Court refused to grant ad interim ex parte order of injunction. An appeal was filed against such refusal. The appellate Court passed an order of status quo without indicating what the status quo was. The order was improper. If the appellate Court was satisfied that the appellant before him had made out a prima facie case for an ad interim ex parte injunction and the balance of convenience justified the grant of such an injunction, it was for him to have passed such an order of injunction. But simply directing the parties to maintain status quo without indicating what the status quo was, is not an order that should be passed at the initial stage of a litigation, especially when one Court had found no reason to grant an ex parte order of injunction and the appellate Court was dealing with only the limited question whether an ad interim order of injunction should or should not have been granted by the trial Court, since the appeal was only against the refusal of an ad interim ex parte order of injunction and the main application for injunction pending suit, was still pending before the trial Court itself.” 5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, miscellaneous appeal was preferred which also was dismissed thereby upholding the order of the trial Court. 6. The question which falls for consideration herein is as to whether in given facts and circumstances where the order of status quo did not specify in clear terms the extent and the subject matter in regard to which the status quo is to be maintained by the rival parties, any occasion arises of disobedience due to its non-compliance ? 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellate Court has rightly relied upon the decision in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan (supra), to hold that since order of status quo was vague, the same cannot be made subject matter for successfully invoking provisions of rule 2(A) of Order 39 of CPC. 8. In the present case, status quo order was non-specific. Thus, view taken by the trial Court and the appellate Court cannot be found fault with. 9. There is no occasion of the Courts below having transgressed their jurisdictional limit set by law. This Court thus declines to exercise limited revisional powers under section 115 of CPC. 10. 8. In the present case, status quo order was non-specific. Thus, view taken by the trial Court and the appellate Court cannot be found fault with. 9. There is no occasion of the Courts below having transgressed their jurisdictional limit set by law. This Court thus declines to exercise limited revisional powers under section 115 of CPC. 10. Consequently, the revision fails and is dismissed sans cost.