Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.
Bhaveshbhai Shah S/o. Deceased Manubhai Shah & Anr. - Appellant
Vs.
Art Nirman Limited & Anr. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 23800 of 2022
Decided On : 06-05-2024
Status Quo - Civil Suit - Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC - The court discussed the application for status quo under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC and the subsequent rejection of the application. The court also considered the legal provisions and the alternative efficacious remedy available with the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a civil suit for permanent injunction, declaration, direction, and damages with regard to certain flats in a cooperative housing society. The defendants started demolishing the flats, leading to the petition for status quo.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the application for status quo was just and proper, considering the larger interest of the society members and the conduct of the petitioners. The court also noted that the impugned order had become academic and the petition was found meritless.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the application for status quo and the maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the application for status quo was just and proper, and the petition was found meritless. The court also emphasized the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal from order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, noting that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were not required to be exercised, and the petition had become academic and infructuous.
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition is filed by the petitioners-original plaintiffs with the following prayers:
(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass an order directing restoration of status quo ante against the Respondents;
(c) Pending final hearing and disposal of the present Petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the Respondents, their persons, servants, agents, or anybody claiming through the Respondents from doing any kind of activity of demolition, constructions, destruction, digging the land or otherwise of any nature creating any third party rights in the subject premises:
(d) Ad interim ex-parte reliefs in terms of Prayers above be granted;
(e) Your Lordships may be pleased to award the cost of the present Petition;
(f) xxxx”
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition, as stated in the petition, are such that the petitioners filed Civil Suit No.1499 of 2022 on 24.10.2022 for permanent injunction, declaration, direction and damages with regard to the flat nos.B-3, I-2 and I-6 of New Ashiyana Flats, Bhimjipura, Navavadaj, Ahmedabad stating that as originally, the New Ashiyana Flats is the cooperative housing society and as the present petitioners-plaintiffs are/were also the members of the said society, they have equal undivided share in the land on which the said society is/was situated and therefore, the land appurtenant to the said flats also form part of the suit properties; that the urgent notice/summons were issued to the defendants on 24.10.2022 making it returnable on 2.11.2022; that the application for appointment of Court Commissioner was allowed on 24.10.2022; that the summons/notice were duly served on the defendants on 28.10.2022, however, due to non-cooperation of the defendants, the court commission could be done from outside the premises only; that the defendants started to demolish the Block B & I on 29.10.2022; that the defendants were demolishing the flats and therefore the plaintiffs gave application on 31.10.2022 to prepone the matter and the matter was preponed by the learned In-charge chamber Judge from 2.11.2022 to 1.11.2022; on 1.11.2022, the mother of the original plaintiff no.1 expired; that the plaintiffs filed application dated 31.10.2022 on 1.11.2022 to maintais status- quo vide Exh.18; that the original defendants appeared through advocate and instead of filing reply to the application Exh.18, gave application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC; the said application under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was rejected on 7.11.2022; during the arguments of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the learned court asked to explore the possibility of settlement, if any and revert back on 2.11.2022 by 11 A.M. and till then, the Court was pleased to grant status-quo vide order passed below Exh.18; the learned advocate for the plaintiffs tendered application Exh.22 to extend/continue the order of status-quo; however, the said application was rejected vide order dated 2.11.2022; the plaintiffs gave application at Exh.24 to stay the said order, however, the said application was also rejected vide order dated 2.11.2022. Hence, this petition is filed.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3.1 Learned senior advocate Mr.Mehul S Shah for learned advocate Ms.Khushbu Vyas for the petitioners has submitted that during the hearing of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the learned court asked to explore the possibilities of settlement, if any and revert back on 2.11.2022 by 11 A.M. and status quo was granted vide order below Exh.18 till then; that the sense with regard to settlement was taken and conveyed to the Court orally that if the original defendants provide copy of sanctioned plan a
The rejection of the application for status quo was found to be just and proper, and the court emphasized the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal from order.
The requirement for pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act can be bypassed if the suit seeks urgent interim relief, despite previous orders maintaining status qu....
All amendments necessary for determining the real issue in controversy between the parties must be allowed, and the fact that the amendment may be belated cannot be a ground to disallow the amendment....
The definition of 'status quo' in legal terms encompasses both possession and user of property; alterations to this status trigger violation of court orders under Article 227.
The discretionary nature of powers under Article 227 and the limited scope of interference by the High Court in matters where there is no patent perversity or gross failure of justice.
Grant of injunction – Wherever proceedings are under CPC and forum is Civil Court, availability of a remedy under CPC, will deter High Court from exercising its Power of Superintendence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
