AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ghulam Mohammed, J.—This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 30-3-2010 passed in CMA No. 19 of 2009 by the Principal District Judge at Visakhapatnam, reversing the order dated 5-11-2008 passed in IA No. 898 of 2008 in OS No. 1062 of 2008 by the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners. Perused the impugned order passed by the Court below.
The revision petitioners herein are defendants in the suit being OS No. 1062 of 2008. The respondents herein-plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of suit property which is stated to be a vacant land of 445 sq. yards. Pending disposal of the suit, the plaintiffs respondents herein filed the present IA seeking interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The trial Court by order dated 5-11-2008 declined to grant the relief. The said order was appealed against in appeal by the plaintiffs-respondents herein. The lower appellate Court by the impugned order allowed the appeal and directed both the parties to maintain status-quo, till the disposal of the suit, which was directed to be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition is filed by the defendants in the suit.
Sri G. Rama Gopal, Learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that in the absence of any material placed to show that the plaintiffs-respondents herein are in possession of the suit property, the Court below ought not to have granted interim orders of status-quo, pending disposal of the suit. Learned Counsel further contended that the Court below ought not to have directed the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of vacant land which create further hurdles for parties as each party would try to take possession of the suit property as it is vacant. In support of his contention Learned Counsel relied on the decision in Chirapareddi Veeramma and Others Vs. Sk. Mahaboob Subhani and Others,
To prove its prima facie case, the plaintiffs-respondents herein filed Ex.A-1 certified copy of warrant of delivery of the suit property in EP No. 364 of 1953 in OS No. 145 of 1947 said to have been filed by the ancestors of the plaintiffs. It is stated that the said suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein was dismissed as against which the matter was carried in appeal in AS No. 92 of 1949 on the file of Sub-Court, Visakhapatnam, and the lower appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 12-2-1949 reversed the judgment of the trial Court in OS No. 145 of 1947 and allowed the appeal and in pursuance of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the fore-fathers of the plaintiffs filed EP being EP No. 364 of 1953 and obtained delivery of possession of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that since then they have been in possession of the suit property and under those circumstance, the Court below observed that under Ex.A-1 the suit property was delivered to the fore-fathers of the plaintiffs. However, it appears, these facts were not pleaded in the affidavit filed before the trial Court. The trial Court relied on Ex.B-1 which is copy of the judgment in the suit filed by the plaintiffs dismissing the suit and declined interim injunction. In Chiapareddi Veeramma''s case (1 supra) this Court at paras 3 and 4 held thus:
In matters relating to disputes regarding possession it is the duty of the Court to decide one way or the other as to which party is prima facie in possession of the property. Unfortunately, in several cases coming up before the lower courts instead of giving a categorical finding as to which party is in possession, the courts frequently resort to granting orders for maintenance of "status quo". Before the court passes such an order, it is incumbent on the court to give a finding as to the particular status quo that it wants to be maintained viz., whether the plaintiff or the defendant is in possession and whose possession is to be maintained. The court cannot escape its duty by merely saying that status quo is to be maintained.
If without deciding the prima facie factual position, the court directs maintenance of status quo, there is every chance of the mightier party taking law into his hands and ousting the weaker party. An order directing maintenance of status quo is capable of greater harm than even a wrong order granting or refusing temporary injunction.
In case where the relief of interim injunction is sought, the Court, prima facie, has to see who is in possession of the suit property as on the date of filing the suit and the balance of convenience. The Court below observed that under Ex.A-1 the suit property was delivered to the forefathers of the plaintiffs and having observed so ought not to have directed to maintain status-quo by the parties. When two parties claim that each of them is in possession of the suit property, the matters will further complicate if the Court does not decide one way or the other as to which party is prima facie in possession of the property. Mere grant of interim injunction will not amount to deciding the rights of the parties. The rights of the parties will only be decided after full-fledged trial and record of evidence. In the circumstances, the IA No. 898 of 2008 filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein is allowed and interim injunction is granted, till the dispose of the suit, which is directed to be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of the order. However, it is made clear that grant of interim injunction now by this Court shall not be constructed as deciding the rights of the parties. This order is passed based on prima facie case and to maintain harmony between the parties till their rights are determined in the main suit.
In the circumstances, the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above and the civil revision petition is dismissed, a. the admission stage itself.