The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order directing the police to implement a previous direction to maintain status quo on suit property. The court upheld the impugned order, finding no infirmity, and vacated an interim order regarding restrictions.
Incidental interim order dated 21.02.2012 is vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CMP No.35 of 2021
“This appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 10.02.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in I.A. No.143 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No.254 of 2005 rejecting an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.
While issuing notice in the matter, this Court by order dated 04.05.2006 as an interim measure directed that status quo with regard to possession shall be maintained and parties to the suit shall not alienate the suit properties without leave of this Court. The said order is continuing till date.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the meantime, more than ten years have already lapsed from the date of passing of the impugned order. In that view of the matter, this Court directs that the suit, if pending, shall be disposed of as expeditiously as
2
possible, preferably by end of August, 2016. The parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the possession of the suit property and there shall be no alienation by either party to the suit without leave of the trial Court.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of.”
Thus, the petitioner apprehends that the I.I.C., Pipili P.S. while implementing the order, may disturb his possession, which finds support from the finding in I.A. No.143 of 2005. He further submits that such a direction is not necessary and if at all, the plaintiff-opposite party has any grievance that the petitioner-defendant No.3 is violating the order passed by this Court in FAO No.85 of 2006, he is at liberty to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2(A) C.P.C. and in that event, the matter can be dealt with in accordance with law. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.
3
order passed by this Court directing to maintain status quo over the suit property should be maintained and if there is any violation of the order and learned trial court is of the considered opinion that the relief under Order XXXIX Rule 2(A) C.P.C. will not be sufficient to mitigate the grievance of the applicant, it may direct for implementation of the order by taking assistance of the concerned police.
……..……………………
K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.
jm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order directing implementation of higher court's status quo order lacks merit.
Whether the petitioner's apprehension of disturbance to possession justifies dismissal of the petition.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite Party
K.R. MOHAPATRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
