The scope of a status quo order is ambiguous and requires clear evidence for violations, as courts will not intervene without established proof of breach.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)

The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

CM APPL. 3857/2022 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

This application stands disposed of.

CM (M) 76/2022

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, is directed against an order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge-03, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in M-10975/2016 [Smt. Usha Rani vs. Sh. Anil Singh Kushwah]. By the impugned order, an application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff ["the plaintiff"] under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"], alleging violation by the respondent-defendant ["the defendant"] of an interim order dated 08.07.2009 was dismissed.

Facts

2. The suit before the Trial Court was filed in the year 2009, wherein the plaintiff claimed a decree for possession of the suit property (A-596-597, Out of Khasra No. 411, situated in abadi of New Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110096) ["the property"].

3. On the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, an interim order dated 08.07.2009 was passed. The order, as extracted in the impugned order dated 18.02.2020, reads as follows:

"Present: Cl. for plt.

Cl. for deft. has filed vakalatnama & requested for adj. Put up on 9/9/09 for w/s. Meanwhile both parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit premises."

4. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC, stating therein that some part of the suit property had been demolished by the defendant from inside. Paragraph 4 of the said application reads as follows:

"That the plaintiff was informed by someone that the defendant is demolishing the property in dispute and on that information the son of the plaintiff reached at the disputed site and found that some alteration was carried out by the defendant by demolishing the rooms on the ground floor and first floor portion of the disputed house and the plaintiff's son immediately moved a complaint to the SHO of P.S. New Ashok Nagar, Delhi on 06.01.2013, but the police has taken no action against the defendant till date for being the matter of civil nature and sub-judice in the present court fixed for 04.02.2013. Copy of the complaint dated 06.01.2013 is annexed herewith."

5. The Trial Court heard the application on evidence, after framing the following issues:

"1. Whether the respondent is guilty of violating the order dated 08.07.2009? OPP

2. Whether the present application is not maintainable? OPR

3. Relief "

6. Evidence was led by the plaintiff and her son, as well as by the defendant. Issue No.2, on the maintainability of the application, was decided in favour of the plaintiff. However, issue No.1, on the merits, was decided against the plaintiff. It is in these circumstances, that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed.

Submissions

7. Mr. Shiv Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the finding in the impugned order, to the effect that the order of status quo granted on 08.07.2009 would not encompass an injunction against the renovation of the property, is erroneous inasmuch as an unqualified order of status quo would cover both questions of title and possession, as well as the nature and character of the suit property. He further refers me to the report of the Local Commissioner dated 08.07.2015, to demonstrate that changes had been made to the suit property during the pendency of the suit, and the subsistence of the interim order.

8. I am informed that a Local Commissioner was appointed by an order dated 02.07.2015 in the course of the proceedings under