AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Aggrieved by the order of status quo made in I.A.No.45 of 2002 in O.S.No.28 of 2002, the petitioner has filed the above revision, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that the order of status quo granted by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul is contrary to the terms of memorandum of understanding recorded in the Civil Appeal No.3527 of 1996 before the Apex Court.
If the grievance of the petitioner is that the order of status quo passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul made in I.A.No.45 of 2002 in O.S.No.28 of 2002 is contrary to the terms of the memorandum of understanding recorded in Civil Appeal No.3527 of 1996, the petitioner is at liberty to apprise the above facts before the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul and to seek modification of the order of status quo dated 15.05.2002 made in I.A.No.45 of 2002 as it is well settled in law that whenever a Court passes an order directing the preservation of status quo, it should by the same order state in unequivocal terms what the status quo is, as held by this Court in D. Albert Vs. Lalitha and Another 1988 TLNJ 284.
Except giving liberty to the petitioner to move the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul for modification of the order dated 15.05.2002 in I.A.No.45 of 2002 in O.S.No.28 of 2002, no further orders are required.
With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is dismissed.