Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 547 (HP)

Sant Ram v. Prakash Chand

2019-05-02

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 3.10.2018, passed by Ld. Additional District Judge (II) Mandi in Appeal Registration No.34/2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the parties be directed to maintain status quo, qua the nature of the suit land during the pendency of the civil suit and justice be done." 2. Record demonstrates that respondents herein, have filed a suit for declaration against the petitioners to the effect that Sale Deed No. 65 dated 21.10.2014 be declared as null and void and non-operative qua them with a consequential relief of injunction directing defendants not to dispossess the plaintiffs from the joint possession over the suit land. 3. In an application filed along with the suit under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, learned trial Court passed the following order:- "x x x x Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that parties have to be directed to maintain status quo, which means that defendant/respondent No.2 shall not transfer the suit land in any manner to any one, and plaintiffs/applicants shall not interfere in peaceful possession of defendant/respondent No.2 qua the suit land; till dispose of the suit. However, anything said in this order, shall not be having any bearing so far as merits of the suit are concerned. x x x x" 4. Feeling aggrieved by the fact that in addition to the issuance of direction to the parties to maintain status quo, learned trial Court directed the plaintiffs-applicants not to interfere in the peaceful possession of defendants/respondent No.2 therein, qua the suit land, plaintiffs filed an appeal. 5. x x x x" 4. Feeling aggrieved by the fact that in addition to the issuance of direction to the parties to maintain status quo, learned trial Court directed the plaintiffs-applicants not to interfere in the peaceful possession of defendants/respondent No.2 therein, qua the suit land, plaintiffs filed an appeal. 5. Vide order dated 3.10.2018 learned appellate Court accepted the said appeal by holding that the findings returned by learned trial Court to the extent that parties were directed to maintain status quo and defendant No.2 was directed not to alienate the suit property in any manner, did not suffer from any legal infirmity, however, direction qua the restraining of plaintiffs by learned trial Court from making any interference in the possession of respondent No.2 therein was not sustainable in law, as this was neither the case of respondent No.2 nor any counter claim stood filed by defendants before learned trial Court. Learned appellate Court held that to this extent the findings returned by learned trial Court were perverse and were required to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the orders passed by learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court as also the record appended with the petition. 7. In my considered view, once learned trial Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the suit land with a further direction that defendant shall not transfer the suit land in any manner to anyone, there was no need for the learned trial Court to have travelled any further by issuing a subsequent direction restraining the plaintiffs not to interfere in the peaceful possession of defendant because this aspect of the matter stood taken care of by the issuance of the maintenance of status qua by the parties. Even otherwise in a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, no restraint order in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC by plaintiff could have been passed against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant by the learned trial Court. The interest of the present petitioners who claimed to be in possession of the suit land otherwise stood duly protected by learned trial Court wherein it has directed parties to maintain status quo. The interest of the present petitioners who claimed to be in possession of the suit land otherwise stood duly protected by learned trial Court wherein it has directed parties to maintain status quo. As such, as this Court does not finds any perversity with the impugned order, there is no need to interfere with the same. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. It is clarified that the observations contained in this order are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present petition and learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observation made by this Court while deciding the suit.