petitioner-defendant. Whether the petitioner usurped or not and whether the Trust had lawfully removed him or the society continued to run the administration would be essentially matters that would be considered only at the time of trial. At least prima facie, the alleged handing over management does not appear to be correct for the plaintiffs to have an immediate relief and to prevent the petitioner from managing the school on an averment made in the plaint that the petitioner was mismanaging the affairs and was indulging in anti-social and unlawful activities. Interim orders are passed for preservation of status quo except in rare cases where the mandatory relief is also given to enforce some new acts in order to secure a status quo ante. The Supreme Court has held in Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another Vs. Praveen Kumar Singh 2006(3) SCC 312 that status quo order passed by a Court without indicating what the status quo was, was improper. This Court has also held in Devender Kumar Vs. Smt. Santra Devi and others 2010(3) Civil Court Cases 529 that if the plaintiffs themselves are not shown to be in possession, grant of order of status quo is erroneous and the Court can pass a status quo order only when it comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession. I would add an additional ground that if the evidence does not support a prima facie case of plaintiff's management as in this case, it should be only held that in such an event, that relief would have become possible after a successful completion of trial if the petitioner has proved his case and not prior thereto.
