The High Court, examining a Special Leave Petition against an order upholding a direction to maintain status quo, found no ground for interference and disposed of the petition with a direction to the trial court to decide the suit promptly.
Petitioners directed to decide the suit as early as possible without unnecessary adjournments.
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.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPMS No. 1223 of 2022 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. |
|||
| Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. |
|||
| Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners are defendants in a suit for Permanent Injunction, which is registered as Original Suit No. 206 of 2017 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roorkee. Learned trial Court allowed plaintiffs’ application for Temporary Injunction and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of suit property. Petitioners, who are defendants in the suit, filed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. Their appeal has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court. Thus feeling aggrieved by orders passed by learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court, petitioners have approached this court. Learned Trial Court has considered the matter in great detail. As per the case set-up by plaintiffs, they had jointly purchased the land in question by a registered sale deed dated 11.02.2008 from Amit Sagar and had constructed boundary wall; plaintiff no. 2 had |
| also constructed two rooms, kitchen, |
|---|
| bathroom-toilet in her plot and has also taken |
| electricity connection and her Aadhar card is |
| also prepared from the same address. |
| Defendants had claimed that they were in |
| possession and plaintiffs forcibly occupied the |
| property in question on 13.08.2017. They |
| contended that Amit Sagar, from whom |
| plaintiffs purchased the property had no right |
| or title, therefore the sale deed relied upon by plaintiffs is_void ab initio_. Learned counsel for the petitioners |
| contends that since petitioners have been |
| dispossessed from the property in question, a |
| few days before filing of the suit, therefore, |
| learned Trial Court erred in directing the |
parties to maintain status quo. I have gone through the orders passed |
| by trial Court as affirmed by Appellate Court. |
| Learned Trial Court has considered the |
| relevant factors i.e.,_prima facie_case, balance |
| of convenience and irreparable loss and has |
| come to the conclusion that in order to |
| preserve the suit property, direction to parties |
| to maintain status quo is necessary. |
| Having regard to the facts of the case |
| and also the reasons assigned by learned Trial |
| Court for passing the order of status quo, this |
| Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same. |
| It is well settled that gr | ant of temporary |
|---|---|
| injunction is discretionary and | this Court is not |
| inclined to interfere withsu order while exercising pow |
ch discretionary er under Article |
| 227 of the Constitution.Th | us, there is no |
| scope for interference with order. However, having regard |
the impugned to the fact that |
| the suit was filed in 2017, | writ petition is |
| disposed of with a request | to learned Trial |
| Court to make endeavour | to decide the |
| aforesaid suit, as early |
as possible. |
| Unnecessary adjournment should be avoided. ( Man oj Ku 05.07. Navin |
to the parties m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 2022 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order directing the parties to maintain status quo in a suit for permanent injunction.
Whether the special leave to appeal against the Appellate Court's order was meritorious given the discretionary nature of temporary injunctions.
Petitioners
Respondents
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
