IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Rahul Bhandare - Appellant
Versus
A2 Interiors Product Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 168 of 2021 & CM Nos. 44808-09 of 2021
Decided On : 03-01-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and procedural history of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. agreed directions for appeal resolution (Para 3) |
| 3. listing for further directions (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--Notice in this appeal was issued on 17.12.2021, pursuant to which the respondent was served.
1.1. Accordingly, Mr Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.
2. The order, which is impugned in the present appeal, is an interlocutory order dated 15.11.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No.14342/2021, preferred in CS(COMM) No.555/2021. The respondent [i.e., the plaintiff] had moved this application in the suit, under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short "CPC"].
2.1. The operative directions issued by the learned Single Judge are contained in paragraph 13 of the impugned order. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereafter :
"13. Till the next date of hearing, the parties shall maintain status-quo with respect to the title and possession of the properties being House No.C-109, South Ex-Part-II, New Delhi - 110049 and House No.1-2, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-110065."
3. According to us, although counsel for the parties i.e., Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, who appears on behalf of the appellants and Mr Mohit Chaudhary, who appears on behalf of the respondent, raised various contentions in the course of the proceedings, they agree that the best way forward in the present situation, given the fact that the application is pending adjudication, is that the appeal is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The learned Single Judge will list the above-mentioned interlocutory application [in short "I.A."] for hearing on merits after hearing both sides on a day convenient to court.
(ii) That pending the above-mentioned I.A., for the moment, the only direction which will bind the appellants is that they will inform the court, at least two weeks before they intend to create any third party rights in the immovable property located at House No.C-109, South Ex-Part-II, New Delhi - 110049. A written intimation, in this behalf, will also be given to the respondent.
(iii) The status quo, which was ordered by the learned Single Judge vis-a-vis the aforementioned property as well as the property located at House No.I-2, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-110065 will, thus, dissolve.
3.1. It is ordered accordingly.
3.2. Needless to add that the order passed by us today will not impact the merits of the case. Both sides will be entitled to put forth their respective submissions before the learned Single Judge.
4. List the matter for directions before the learned Single Judge on 20.01.2022.
5. Consequently, pending applications shall also stand closed.
Court emphasizes the requirement of notifying intentions to create third-party rights in property pending adjudication of application, upholding status quo.
The court has the authority to issue specific directions to maintain the status quo and prevent changes in disputed properties during the pendency of an interlocutory application.
The court clarified the limited extent of the restraint on the appellants and emphasized that the factual observations and findings in the impugned order shall not have a bearing on the final disposa....
The court clarified that an injunction cannot stand if the party seeking it is not presently in possession of the property.
Court emphasized the necessity for specific findings on status quo applications in property disputes, underscoring thorough assessment by the lower court amid ongoing appeals.
An order passed by the Court at any stage of the case has equal efficacy and cannot be violated.
The court affirmed its inherent authority to issue preservation orders under Article 227 and Section 151 of CPC, regardless of injunction criteria not being satisfied, emphasizing the maintenance of ....
The court ruled that maintaining the status quo regarding property is essential to ensure legal consistency until similar legal matters are resolved.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.