Supreme Court of India
RAVI PRAKASH AGARWAL & ORS.versusRAJESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 274
- Decided
- 29 February 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the status‑quo should be maintained as originally ordered, without implying any opinion on the merits, and the trial court should dispose of the suit promptly.
Summary
The appellants filed suit No. 445 of 1999 seeking a declaration that a sale deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.3 was void and permanent injunctions to prevent dispossession, sale or letting of the disputed property. The trial court granted an ex‑parte injunction, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, directing the parties to maintain the status‑quo of the property and to dispose of the suit within six months. On an application by respondent No.4, the High Court recalled the status‑quo order on 9 January 2002 and dismissed the appeal. The appellants contended that the status‑quo had been in force for nine years and should not be altered, while the respondents argued that the order was merely procedural. The Supreme Court held that, given the considerable period the status‑quo had been maintained, it was appropriate to continue it as originally ordered, clarifying that this does not express any view on the merits, and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit as early as possible. The appeal was disposed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the High Court directing maintenance of status‑quo, which had been in force for nine years, should be continued despite its recall on an application by a respondent.
- Whether the continuation of the status‑quo order amounts to an adjudication on the merits of the suit.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 41 Rule 1(r)
Subjects
injunctionstatus quoCivil Procedureproperty disputeappealorder recallinterim injunctionpermanent injunction
Judgment
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 642
A RAVI PRAKASH AGARWAL & ORS.
,. • • ..
v.
RAJESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1668 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 29, 2008
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)
• ~
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 0.41 R.41(r):
Appeal under, against order of Division Bench of High
c Court directing to maintain status quo in respect of property in
dispute - Application - Order recalled and order granting
interim injunction vacated by th~ High Court- On appeal, Held:
Order of the Division Bench of the High Court granting
maintenance of status quo continued for considerable period
D of time - Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to
continue the said order of the High Court - Trial Court directed - ..
to dispose of the suit at the earliest - Directions issued.
Appellants filed a suit and an application for
injunction for declaring the sale deed executed by
E respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.3 as void and
for issuance of permanent injunction against them
restraining them from dispossessing and also from
selling, letting and disposing of the property. The trial •
Court granted the injunction against the respondents. The
F order was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High
Court directing the parties to maintain status quo of the
property in question. Subsequently, on the application
filed by respondent No.4, the order was recalled and the
appeal was dismissed by the High Court.. Hence the
G present appeal.
Appellant contended that the order of the High Court
granting status quo continued for nine years and by the
.. ~
impugned order the position has been changed.
H 642
RAVI PRAKASH AGARWAL & ORS. v. RAJESH 643
PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
• .
- "i
Disposing of the appeal, the Court A
HELD: 1.1 The order of status quo continued for
considerable length of time. It would, therefore, be·
appropriate to direct maintenance of status quo as ·was
originally granted by the High Court vide its order dated
B
24.11.2001. (Para- 7) [644-G, 645-A]
~
~ 1.2 It is clarified that by giving this protection it shall
not be construed as if this Court has expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case. The Trial Court to
dispose of the suit as early as practicable. (Para ...,. 7) c
[645-A]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1668
of 2008.
.- From the final Judgment and Order dated 13/7/2006 of D
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in F.A.F.O. No. 1741/
2001.
Rak!'lsh Dwivedi, Ritesh Agarwal, M.Z. Chaudhary and
Anis Ahmed Khan for the Appellants.
E
Dinesh Dwivedi, Shrish Kumar Misra and Ajay Kr. Singh
for the Respondents.
~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. F
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal under Order
41 Rule 1 {r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short
'CPC')
G
3. Backgrounds facts in a nutshell are as follows:
... • The appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit (suit No.445of1999)
for three reliefs:
(i) The sale deed executed by defendant-respondent H
.•
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 3 S.C.R.
.
,.
A no.1 on 22.2.1999 in favour of defendant-respondent
no.3 be declared as void.
(ii) a permanent injunction be issued restraining the
defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from
the property in dispute.
B
(iii) Another permanent injunction restraining the
..
defendants no.1, 2 and 4 from letting, selling and ~
disposing of the property.
c 4. An application for injunction was also filed. On 4.5.1999
ex-parte order of injunction was granted. The prayer to modify
the same was rejected. On 24.11.2001 a consent order was
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division
Bench directed disposal of the suit within six months and further
D directed maintenance of status quo of the suit property till its
disposal on certain conditions. Subsequently, application was
filed by respondent no.4 by making a grievance that her counsel
- ..
was not heard. It is the stand of the appellants that her defence
was struck off. In any event the order was recalled on 9.1.2002.
E High Court dismissed the appeal holding prayer for interim
injunction.
5. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that the
order of status quo continued for nine years and by the impugned
"-
order the position has been changed. The conditions stipulated
F are really of no consequential relevance, as in that case during
pendency of the case there may be a necessity for impleading
the vendees.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand,
G submitted that the order is really one of concurrence and,
therefore, there was no need to repeat the reasoning.
7. We find that the order of status quo continued for • 4"
considerable length of time. It would, therefore, be appropriate
to direct maintenance of status quo as was originally granted
H
RAVI PRAKASH AGARWAL & ORS. v. RAJESH
.. .
645
- ' PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
by order dated 24.11.2001. We make it clear that by giving this A
protection it shall not be construed as if we have expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case. We request the Trial Court to
dispose of the suit as early as practicable preferably by the end
of 2008.
B
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed with no order as to
costs.
S.K.S. Appeal disposed of.
.. ---
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "injunction"Sign in to search