The breach of a status-quo order and the execution of a Power of Attorney were considered, and the court upheld the Appellate Court's decision, directing the deposit of the Power of Attorney and restraining its use.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of the Appellate Court dated 30th March, 2022, passed in Appeal No. 23 of 2022 in Exhibit No. 279 in RAE & R Suit No. 54/176 of 1994 before the Small Causes Court, Bandra, (the “said suit”) allowing the Appeal of the original Defendant No.2.

2. The Petitioner as the original Plaintiff has earlier filed the said suit for eviction against the Respondents/Original Defendants in respect of suit premises being sub plot no. 3 of Plot No. A-2, CS No. 164/2 of Vile Parle Division along with shack and structure at Gandhigram Road, Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 (the “said premises/suit premises/ the said property”), admeasuring about 438.70 sq. meters, on the grounds of illegal subletting, arrears of rent and bona fide requirement.

3. The suit was resisted by the Respondents/Original Defendants by filing their written statement and additional written statement. The suit was taken up for evidence. The Petitioner filed their affidavit of evidence along with documents. The documents were, according to the Petitioner, marked by the Trial Court and kept for cross-examination of PW-2.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 4th March, 2010 a Power of Attorney (“first Power of Attorney”) was executed by Respondent No.1 in favour of Harish Chandar Mishra as Respondent No.1 was in judicial custody inter alia granting Harish Chandar Mishra physical possession of the said property and to represent the donor of the power before any official authorities of any State/Central Government or local body, which may be connected and/or concerned with the suit property in any manner and to make any statement, applications, affidavits, undertakings, etc. on behalf of the donor in his name in respect of the said property and to deal with all matters.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the Petitioner took out an interim application being Exhibit No. 236 for injunction and other reliefs. The said exhibit came up for hearing on 20th January, 2021. The Trial Court granted an order of status-quo on 20th January, 2021, which was continued and the application under Exhibit 236 was made absolute on 24th September, 2021.

6. On 20th January, 2021, the learned Single Judge of the Small Causes Court (the “Trial Court”) granted status-quo till filing of the reply in Exhibit No. 236 in the following terms :-

“In the interest of justice Both Parties Are Directed To Maintain Status-Quo Till Filing Of Reply By Deft no.2.”

7. Thereafter, on 10th February, 2021, the learned Single Judge of the Small Causes Court adjourned the matter for reply till 22nd February, 2021. On 22nd February, 2021, the Single Judge passed a direction under Exhibit No.236 inter alia stating “Reply not filed keep for arguments. Adjourned for Hrg. in 236”. On 9th March, 2021, Respondent No.1 filed an application being Exhibit No. 252 for setting aside the “No Reply” order dated 22nd February, 2021. On 7th April, 2021, the Single Judge extended the order of status-quo till the decision was passed under Exhibit No.236 i.e. the status-quo application in the following terms:-

“In The Interest of Justice Order Below Ex. 236 Is Extended Till Decision of Ex.236 on Merit”

8. On 26 July, 2021, the Single Judge allowed the Respondents to file a reply setting aside the No Reply order, subject to costs of Rs.2,000/- as under :-

“App Is Allowed Sub. To Cost Of Rs.2000/-. To Be Paid To Plff On or Before 09-08-2021”

9. On 9th August, 2021, reply was filed to the status-quo application viz. Exhibit No. 236, which was taken on record as Exhibit No. 265 on 2nd September, 2021.

10. A Power of Attorney dated 2nd September, 2021 (“Second Power of Attorney”), came to be executed by Respondent No.1 in favour of Mr. Taizun Nisar Hassonjee, inter alia to have physical possession of the said property and to represent any Office/Authorities of the State/Central Government or local body, which may be connected and / or c