AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Shailesh Kumar Sinha
The appeal is directed against the order dated 27th April, 2007 passed by the 1st Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga in Partition Suit No. 62 of 2006 whereby the ad-interim order of injunction dated 62 of 2006 directing the defendant no. 1 to maintain status quo over the property mentioned in schedule IA of the plaint till further order was made absolute by the order under appeal on a petition of an injunction filed by the plaintiff. Shortly stated the facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition by meets and bound. Further relief prayed for in the said suit was that till the partition is effected the property covered under the two sale deeds purchased by the defendant nos. 1 & 2 of the suit may be restrained from taking possession over the properties mentioned in schedule I/A by virtue of the two sale deeds dated 29th May, 2006 and 20th May, 2006 executed by the defendant nos. 4 & 8 to 11 in favour of the defendant nos. 1 & 2. The said suit was filed on 31xst May, 2006 i.e. immediately on the next day of the second sale deed dated 30th May, 2006 and on 01.06.2006 a petition was filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 of the CPC restraining the defendant nos. 1 & 2 from taking possession with respect to the lands mentioned in schedule I/A by virtue of the aforesaid two sale deeds. The Court below on the same day passed an order for maintaining the status quo till filing of the show cause in the meantime a report from the Pleader Commissioner was sought for with respect to the status of house property in question. The show cause was filed. The Court below upon hearing the parties on the petition of injunction and their show cause disposed of the matter whereby an order of status quo was passed restraining the parties through temporary injunction from damaging the suit land. As such the ad-interim order of injunction dated 1.06.2006 was made absolute till further order. While passing the order the Court below also directed both the parties to file their respective documents for settling the issues and hearing of the suit as the same is otherwise ready. The defendant nos. 1 & 2 being aggrieved has preferred the present appeal.
Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the plaintiff besides seeking the relief for partition specifically pleaded that by a decree of temporary injunction the defendant 1st party be restrained from taking possession over the schedule I/A properties covered under the aforesaid two sale deeds till the suit for partition is disposed of. It is further submitted that the defendant nos. 1 & 2 by virtue of the aforesaid sale deed immediately came over the possession and the defendant nos. 1 is running the Gynecological clinic, and therefore, while maintaining status quo the above defendants are within their right to remain in possession of the purchased properties and also make certain basic necessary constructions in order to carry on the Gynecological clinic by construction of bathroom, waiting room, overhead water tank and repair of the roof of the clinic and the aforesaid act could not be said to be damaging the suit property. It is accordingly submitted that the order under appeal deserved to be set aside since it interferes with the possession of the defendants over schedule I/A properties.
Mr. J.S. Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 submits that by the order under appeal it is not that the appellants herein were only restrained, but the parties to the suit were directed to maintain status quo restraining them through the temporary injunction from damaging the suit land. As such, none of the parties could have a grievance against such order. As regards the submission on behalf of the appellants that while remaining in possession and running Gynecological clinic there are certain basic requirements like constructions of bathroom, waiting room for the female patients, overhead water tank and repair of roof of the clinic, it was open for the concerned defendants to seek modification of the order by satisfying the Court below of such requirements. It was further submitted that neither such prayer was made in the Court below nor any application is filed in this appeal for such interim direction, the order maintaining the status quo as directed in the order under appeal has remained for nearly about six years, it calls for no interference.
Considering the submissions of the parties and the nature of relief prayed for in the suit as also injunction petition as well as the order under appeal, it would appear that both the parties have been directed to maintain status quo and they have been restrained through temporary injunction from damaging the suit property, in my opinion, such order cannot give any valid grievance to any parties to the suit. In course of hearing of this appeal, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the first order was passed on 01.06.2006 which was made absolute on 7th April, 2007 and since then the defendants are facing serious hardship in running the clinic for female patients, in my opinion, it was open for the appellant to move before the Court below for seeking appropriate direction in this regard and satisfy the Court below with respect to the requirements like construction of bathroom, waiting room, repair of roof etc.
In the result, in view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. It goes with saying that both the parties shall cooperate in early disposal of the suit and the Court below shall make all endeavour so that the suit itself is disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of one year.