IMPORTANT POINT
The application of injunction and the need to maintain status quo in property disputes to protect the interests of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

1. The instant civil revision has been preferred against order dated 28th June, 2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands at Port Blair in Misc. Appeal No. 03 of 2023.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the present respondent has preferred a suit before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Port Blair for mutation, partition and declaration of right for recovery of possession of the share of the plaintiff in respect of a landed property being survey No. 3137 measuring an area of 0.0207 hectares situated at South Point Village, under Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District.

3. The peculiar fact of the case goes to show that the present petitioner no. 1 is the mother of the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 and the respondent. After filing of the suit, the respondent had prayed for an order of injunction before the learned Trial Court which has refused. Against the said order of refusal Misc. Appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Port Blair. The learned District Judge after hearing, was pleased to dismiss the application for the injunction filed in the Misc. Appeal by the respondent.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned District Judge, the respondent preferred one civil revision before this Court and the learned Single Bench of this Court has directed the learned District Judge to dispose of the appeal as early as possible. The learned District Judge has heard the appeal and passed the impugned order to the effect that “both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as to the nature, character and possession of the Suit property as on this day till the disposal of Suit. The Ld. Court below is directed to dispose of the Title Suit being No. 35 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law within 06 months from the date of receipt of this Order without granting unnecessary adjournment to the parties of the Suit.”

5. The petitioners being the mother and the other sisters of the respondent has preferred the instant revision with a specific fact that the suit property was belong to the husband of the petitioner no. 1 namely; R. Dhan Raj; his name was recorded in the revenue records. After demise of the said R. Dhan Raj, the name of the petitioner no. 1 was recorded in respect of the suit property. At the time of the said mutation proceeding, the present petitioner no. 2 to 4 as well as the respondent have also submitted an affidavit independently containing the fact that if the name of the petitioner no. 1 was recorded, they would have no objection.

6. After recording the name of the petitioner no. 1, she has constructed a building over the said land after obtaining the necessary permission from the municipality. A huge amount of money was spent for such construction. The respondent denied to share the costs of the renovation of the property and for making the structure. Consequently, the disputes arose between the parties.

7. It is the case of the petitioners that the order of injunction passed by the learned District Judge, Port Blair is completely improper. The petitioner no. 1 being the rightful owner over the suit property cannot suffer an order of injunction. It is the further argument of the petitioner no. 1 that by virtue of the order of injunction the respondent may create disturb the possession of the petitioner over the suit property.

8. Learned advocate for the respondent submits that the suit for partition was filed. The respondent being the daughter of R. Dhan Raj has the share over the undivided property of her father. He further argued that the order of injunction passed by the learned District Judge shall not prejudice any of the parties as the order stated about maintaining status quo as to the nature, character and possession of the suit property as on the day till the disposal of the suit.

9. It is further argued that a necessary direction was made upon the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the matter within six mo