Ravinder Sharma and another vs Harphool and others

M. Jeyapaul, J.—The plaintiffs moved an application for interim order in a suit laid for declaration of title. The trial court granted an order of status quo regarding possession and alienation of the suit property as per the orders passed by it on 22.9.2012. When the matter came up for the next hearing i.e. On 23.10.2012, the trial Court having adverted to the documents on record made an observation that the suit property prima facie appeared to be self acquired property of defendant no. 1 and not his ancestral property. Having thus observed the order of status quo granted earlier on 22.09.2012 stood vacated. Aggrieved by the aforesaid observation and the non extension of the earlier order of status quo passed by the trial Court, the present Revision has been directed.

The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner would vehemently submit that such an observation would almost decide the merit of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

I do not find any merit in such a submission made by learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner.

The Trial Court has held prima facie based on certain documents produced even before the final disposal of the said application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC that the suit property appeared to be self acquired property of the defendant no. 1.

The trial Court is entitled to come to a prima facie conclusion even before the final disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Otherwise, the trial Court cannot pass any interim order in absentia of the other side. To pass an interim order even before the disposal of the main application, the Court will have to come to a prima facie conclusion. The trial Court felt that the order of status quo already granted shall not be extended, therefore, it has assigned some reason for not extending the order of status quo.

In as much as the main application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is still pending disposal, the plaintiff will have to wait for the final decision of the Court in the said application. The Revision preferred as against the aforesaid observation made by the Court is not at all sustainable. Prima facie conclusion does not imply that the Court pre judged the issue before it. The plaintiff is at liberty to canvass the plea that the suit property is only an ancestral property and not the self acquired property during the course of hearing of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. With the above observation, I find that there is no merit in the Revision. Therefore, the Revision fails and stands dismissed. No costs.