The rights of the tenants and the protection of the suit premises were crucial in influencing the court's decision to maintain status quo.

ORDER :

1. The present petition is filed by being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 11.11.2020 passed below Ex.18 in Regular Civil Suit No.411 of 2019, by which the trial Court has partly allowed the application filed by the respondent Nos.1.1 and 2.1, by directing the parties to maintain status quo.

2.1 Brief facts of the case are as such that the petitioner and other had instituted Regular Civil Suit No.411 of 2019 before learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Una, for declaration to the effect that the part of the suit property, which is in dilapidated condition, may be permitted to be pulled down by the plaintiffs and that the defendants may be injuncted from causing any disturbance for the same. On 07.10.2019, the learned Judge has granted the application below Exh.5 moved in Regular Civil Suit No.411 of 2019 and directed that if the petitioner wants to pull down the construction, the defendants shall not cause any obstruction for the same.

2.2 It is further the case of the petition in the present petition that the respondent Nos.1.1 and 2.1 filed an application below Exh.18 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, stating that the aforesaid order passed below Exh.5 may be stayed recalled and it may be declared that the said order will not be applicable to them and aforesaid two persons are third parties applicants and they have also gave an application below Exh.21 for being joined as parties in Regular Civil Suit No.411 of 2019 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thereafter, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Una, by order dated 08.09.2020 has partly allowed the aforesaid application below Exh.18 moved Regular Civil Suit No.411 of 2019 and directed that the status-quo be maintained with regard to the suit property in question and no demolition be done. Impugned order is purportedly passed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Impugned order is passed on the application below Exh.18 moved by the third parties, who are not yet joined as parties in R.C.S. No.411 of 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application below Exh.24 to vacate the impugned order and also filed reply below Exh.18 and 21 applications. Thereafter, learned Judge, Una by the order dated 16.09.2020 has rejected the application below Exh.24 filed by the petitioner.

2.3 Thereafter, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders below Exh.18 and 24, the petitioner has preferred Special Civil Application No.13243 of 2020, which came to be partly allowed by this Court vide order dated 02.11.2020, whereby this Court remanded the matter back to learned trial Court to decide application below Exh.18 as well as the joining party application of the third party, which was filed below Exh.21. Thereafter, the learned trial Court vide order dated 11.11.2020 has allowed the application below Exh.21 and has joined the third parties as parties in Regular Civil Suit No.411 of 2019. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge by separate order of the same date i.e. 11.11.2020 allowed application below Exh.18 moved in Regular Civil Suit No.411 of 2019 and has granted status-quo in the matter.

2.4 Hence, the present petition is filed.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar with Mr. H.J. Karathiya, learned advocate for the petitioner and learned senior advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah with Mr. Vishal C. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 1.1, 2 and 2.1.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has erred in passing the order below exhibit 18 by directing the parties to maintain status quo even though the simultaneously the application which is moved at exhibit 21 under the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is also moved by third parties and in this factual background, the order passed by the learned trial Court is unwarranted.

4.2 He has further submitted that in the earlier round of litigation