The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining status quo in property disputes until final resolution, reinforcing prior judicial orders.

JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, this matter has been taken up for final disposal.

2. Rule. Learned advocate, Mr. Monal Chaglani waives service of notice of rule for respondent.

3. By filing instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provision of the Order 41, Rule 5 and under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.01.2023 passed below application, Exh.5 by the learned Additional District Judge, Una in Regular Civil Appeal No.1/2023 (Annexure-A) and thereby prayed for relief as prayed in Paragraph No.7(1) of the application, Exh.5 in Regular Civil Appeal No.1/2023.

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under,

4.1 The dispute pertains to land bearing Survey No.62 admeasuring 2 Acre 30 Guntha situated in the sim of Village : Rampara, Taluka : Una, District : Gir-Somnath, which is known as “Dhedhiyu” (hereinafter referred to as “the land in question”. The aforesaid land was ancestral land, which came into the share of the husband of the petitioner no.1.1 and father of the petitioner nos.1.2 to 1.10 viz., Bavaji Hiragar Motigar (the deceased).

4.2 However as the respondent was trying to disturb the possession of the suit land, the deceased filed Regular Civil Suit No.91/1996 before the court of the learned Civil Judge, Una inter alia praying for permanent injunction on 20.06.1996. Along with the said plaint, an application for injunction, Exh.5 was also preferred. The notice was issued, which was duly served upon the respondent – original defendants and in pursuance thereto, they have appeared through advocate.

4.3 On 20.06.1996, the learned Civil Judge, Una granted ad-interim relief and directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land in question.

4.4 Thereafter on 31.01.1997, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Una allowed the application, Exh.5 and granted injunction and thereby directed the respondent – original defendant, his family members, servants and/or agents not to enter into the land in question and also directed not to create any hindrance to the petitioner and his family members while doing agriculture work.

4.5 Against the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred Civil Misc. Application No.31/1997 before the learned District Court, Junagadh and the learned District Judge partly allowed the said application by an order dated 24.04.1997 and thereby partly modified the order dated 31.01.1997 passed below injunction application, Exh.5, whereby it is ordered that for the half area of the land bearing Survey No.62 admeasuring 1 Acre and 30 Guntha, the original defendant shall not obstruct the possession of northern 4 bigha of land of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is also directed to maintain status quo in respect of defendant’s possession of half of the area of the land pending suit before the learned civil court.

4.6 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the deceased approached this Hon’ble Court by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No.5715/2004 and after hearing the parties, this Hon’ble Court, by an order dated 21.06.2004, partly allowed the said writ petition and thereby quashed and set aside the order dated 24.04.1997 passed by the learned District Judge directing the petitioner – original plaintiff to maintain status quo in respect of the respondent – original defendant’s possession of half of the area of the land bearing Survey No.62 admeasuring 2 Acres and 30 Guntha and also directed the learned civil court to hear and dispose of the suit within three months from the receipt of the said order. It is required to be noted that the aforesaid order was carried further before the higher forum but it has attained finality.

4.7 Thereafter pending suit, the deceased, Bavaji Hiragar Motigar passed away and, hence, their heirs were brought on record.

4.8 Thereafter the suit was proceeded furth