Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2878
DELHI HIGH COURT
V.K.Jain, J.
Shumita Didi Sandhu - Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors. - Resopndent
CS(OS) 41/2005
Decided On : 24-08-2012
Through: Mr Salim Inamdar, Adv.
Through: Mr S.S. Jauhar, Adv for Ds-1-3 Mr Sanjeev Mahajan, Adv for D-4 to 7
Interpretation of status quo order and its implications on the defendants' actions.
Headnote:
Interim Order - Breach of Order - CPC - Order 39 Rule 2 A - Status Quo - Suit for Permanent Injunction - Interpretation of Status Quo Order - Case Laws Referenced: S. Anand Deep Singh v. Ranjit Kaur and Ors. ILR (1991) Delhi, Suit No. 1547/1999, Eastman Collaborator v. S.K. Mehta: 91(2001) DLT 401 - The court dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 2 A of CPC, stating that the status quo order prevented the defendants only from dispossessing the plaintiff from the first floor of the suit property and did not prevent them from transferring the property as long as they did not disturb the plaintiff's possession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that a property was her matrimonial home and sought to restrain the defendants from committing acts of violence and intimidation against her and from forcibly dispossessing her from the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 2 A of CPC, stating that the status quo order prevented the defendants only from dispossessing the plaintiff from the first floor of the suit property and did not prevent them from transferring the property as long as they did not disturb the plaintiff's possession.
Issues: Breach of interim order, interpretation of status quo order, application under Order 39 Rule 2 A of CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the status quo order and the absence of a prayer in the suit for restraining the defendants from selling or transferring the property.
Final Decision: The application under Order 39 Rule 2 A of CPC was dismissed.
V.K.Jain, J.
IA No. 12913/2008 (O. 39 R. 2A CPC)
1. This is an application filed under Order 39 Rule 2 A of CPC for taking action against defendants No. 1 and 3 for committing breach of the interim order passed by this Court. The grievance of the plaintiff is that while executing two different sale deeds for sale of different portions of property No. 18-A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, defendants No. 1 and 3 committed breach of the interim order passed by this Court on 18.01.2005.
2. The plaintiff before this Court is the wife of defendant No. 1 Shri Sanjay Singh Sandhu and daughter-in-law of defendants 2 and 3, namely, Shri Hardev Singh Sandhu and Smt. Shiela Sandhu. She filed the suit for permanent injunction claiming that property No. 18-A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi was her matrimonial home since 1994. The following prayers made in the suit:-
“(a) Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2 and 3 from committing themselves or through their agents/representatives acts of violence and intimidation against the plaintiff;
(b) Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2 and 3 and their agents/representatives from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff out of her matrimonial home without due process of law.”
3. IA No. 291/2005 was filed for an interim injunction claiming the following reliefs:-
“(a) Pass an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the defendant from committing the acts of adultery and the acts of violence and intimidation against the plaintiff;
(b) Pass an ad interim ex parte injunction directing the defendant not to through the plaintiff out of her matrimonial home and live there peacefully”
4. Vide order dated 18.01.2005, this Court noted the statement of the plaintiff that she was in possession of the first floor of the suit property and directed status quo with regard to the suit property to be maintained till the next date of hearing.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the status quo order prevented the defendants from selling the suit property and that is why they committed breach of the said order by executing two separate sale deeds with respect to the suit property. In my view, the contention is wholly misconceived.
The order of status quo passed by the Court has to be read in the context of the prayer made in the suit and the application for interim injunction. If read out of the context, an order directing status quo can be interpreted to mean anything and may result in different interpretations of the same order by various parties to the suit. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in S. Anand Deep Singh v. Ranjit Kaur and Ors. ILR (1991) Delhi. In that case, in a suit for partition, rendition of accounts and declaration, the plaintiff had obtained an interim order directing status quo to be maintained in relation to the properties mentioned in the two Schedules, annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff filed a Civil Contempt Petition stating therein that one of the Defendants had carried out construction activity in one of the properties mentioned in one of the Schedules and had thereby violated the status quo order passed by the Court. The prayer made by the plaintiff in the application for grant of interim injunction was confined to restraining the Defendants from alienating or parting with possession of the disputed property. Dismissing the Contempt Petition, this Court, inter alia, held as under:
“There is no doubt that in IA 4224/89 status quo orders were passed regarding properties in Schedules I & II on 26th May, 1989. However, the exact import of the words "status quo' will have to be judged in the light of the prayer made in IA 4224/89. The prayer in this application is that the Defendants should be restrained from selling, alienating, encumbering or in any manner parting with the possession of the properties. There is no prayer in the entire application that the Respondents/Defendants
