A court's interim order to maintain status quo in a property dispute does not necessarily prohibit the parties from making necessary repairs or improvements to the property, provided that they do not alter the overall status quo and that they are willing to restore the property to its original condition if the court ultimately decides in favor of the other party.

JUDGMENT

1. The matter comes upon second stay application filed by the petitioners.

2. When the revision petition came up before the Court for admission, by order dated 20.12.2017, notices were ordered to be issued and it was directed as under:-

"In the meanwhile and until further orders, status quo regarding the title of the property shall be maintained by the parties."

3. It is alleged in the application that after passing of the interim order dated 20.12.2017, the respondents were maintaining status quo, however, now they have started raising construction over the suit property and, therefore, they be restrained from raising construction. Alongwith the second stay application, certain photographs evidencing raising of construction have been filed.

4. A reply to the second stay application has been filed by respondents No.7 and 8 inter alia indicating that the interim order granted by the Court on the stay application is explicit, wherein, only status quo regarding the title of the suit property was directed to be maintained and that as the existing property / house in question was in dilapidated condition, as on account of heavy rains the same collapsed, the respondents were required to raise fresh construction.

5. Submissions have also been made that by distorting the interim order granted by the Court, the petitioners have attempted to involve the police authorities as well as the Municipal Board, whereby, presently the construction activity has been stopped by the Municipal Board. Photographs of the dilapidated house have been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that from the material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioners were in settled possession and they have been dispossessed from the plot in question and that the status quo was being maintained qua the plot in question despite a limited interim order granted by the Court and if during pendency of the revision petition, status of the suit property is changed by the respondents, the same would result in irreparable injury to the petitioners and, therefore, the respondents be restrained from raising construction.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents No.7 and 8 submits that the trial court has recorded a categorical finding regarding the fact that the respondents only were in possession and that the petitioners were never dispossessed, therefore the suit, which was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the Act of 1963'), itself was not maintainable.

8. It is submitted that if the respondents are not permitted to raise construction, they would be left without any roof, inasmuch as, existing construction, which was in dilapidated condition, has already been removed and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

10. The suit was filed by the petitioners under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 alleging dispossession on 3.7.2001 from the suit plot. The trial court, after evidence was led by the parties, inter alia came to the conclusion that the petitioners had failed to prove that they were in possession of the suit plot, when it is alleged that they were dispossessed. The trial court also noticed the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property was purchased as benami in the names of the respondents.

11. The very fact of filing the suit under Section of the Act of 1963 shows that the respondents were in possession of the suit property. The pictures, which have been placed on record alongwith the reply, indicates that the tenaments, which were available, were only of temporary nature made of mud and stone slabs.

12. Though learned counsel for the petitioners disputed the fact that the respondents were residing in the said tenaments, however, the fact that the status of the tenaments, as it existed, has not been disputed. In view thereof, the contention raised