A plaintiff seeking an interlocutory injunction must establish a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm, which were not met in this instance.

JUDGMENT

1. This is a somewhat extraordinary application.

2. The first defendant is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. Admittedly, she was staying with the plaintiff till 10th May, 2020, at No. 18, Avenue Amaltas, West End Green Farms, Rajokri, New Delhi-110038 (referred to, hereinafter, as "the suit property"). On 10th May, 2020, the first defendant went to visit her mother. By the present application, the plaintiff seeks an interlocutory injunction, from this Court, restraining the first defendant from returning to the suit property.

3. As to the law, which would empower me to grant the injunction, sought in the application, at this interlocutory stage, I was totally at sea, when the hearing of this application commenced, and, I must confess, I remain at sea even as on date, despite the valiant attempts, of Ms. Rajkotia, learned counsel for the applicant, to convince me that the application was maintainable and deserves to be allowed. To my mind, it is obvious that the present application is an attempt, by the plaintiff, to capitalise on the departure, of her daughter-in-law, to her mother's abode, on 10th May, 2020. Had the first defendant not left, on 10th May, 2020, to visit her mother, there is little doubt that the plaintiff could not, at this interlocutory stage, have sought a direction, from this Court, to direct the first defendant not to return to the suit property. What could not have been achieved, directly is, in my opinion, being sought to be achieved indirectly, by way of this application, seeking a restraint, on the first defendant returning to the suit property, from her mother's house, where she is presently staying. In my view, this is totally impermissible and may teeter perilously on the edge of abuse of the legal process.

4. Atul Chopra, the husband of the first defendant and the son of the plaintiff, it may be noted, though not a party to the original lis, was impleaded as the second defendant, vide order dated 3rd April, 2019, passed in these proceedings.

5. Before proceeding to reconnoitre, to the extent necessary, the facts, it is worthwhile to mention, even at this juncture, that, on 10th July, 2019, I.A. 13931/2018, filed by the plaintiff with the present suit, seeking stay, was disposed of, in the following terms:

"Defendant No. 1 has no objection to the order dated 20th December, 2018 being confirmed. Accordingly, the Defendant shall not hand over possession or create any third-party interest in property bearing No. 18, Avenue Amaltas, Westend Greens Farms, Rajokri, New Delhi-110038. Status quo shall be maintained as to title and possession. This order shall operate during the pendency of the present suit, unless it is varied.

I.A. is disposed of."

(Emphasis supplied)

6. The status quo, as directed by the aforesaid order, dated 10th July, 2019, continues, unvaried, till date. No prayer, for modification, variation, or vacation, of the order, dated 10th July, 2019, has been made, in the present application. Ms. Rajkotia sought to submit that the status quo, as directed by the afore-extracted order dated 10th July, 2019, was by way of a direction to the first defendant and would not apply to the plaintiff. The submission has merely to be made, to be rejected. On a plain reading, the direction for maintenance of status quo, as contained in the order dated 10th July, 2019, is a direction qua the suit property and is not, expressly or by necessary implication, intended to operate qua the plaintiff, or the defendants individually. Status quo, regarding title and possession, has been directed to be maintained qua the suit property. Allowing the prayer, in the present application,