Trial courts must specify possession in status quo orders to prevent ambiguity and ensure effective implementation.

ORDER :

1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition have challenged order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff, Budgam (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”), whereby the trial court has clarified that order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the said court by virtue of which Tehsildar, Khansahib was directed to implement the order of status quo, sustains. It has been further observed in the said order that the court would proceed with the implementation of its earlier order through Tehsildar concerned.

2) Heard and considered.

3) It appears that the petitioners have field a suit against the respondents seeking a declaration that land measuring 04 kanals and 17 marlas falling under Khasra No.950/182 and 949/182 min situated at Village Raiyar Ich Tehsil Khansahib District Budgam belongs to them with a decree of permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from causing any sort of interference in the suit property. It also appears that the plaintiffs/petitioners also filed an application for grant of interim relief along with the said suit.

4) On 25.01.2025, an exparte interim order came to be passed by the learned trial court whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo on spot. It also appears that a number of applications came to be filed by the parties before the trial court complaining violation of status quo order, which prompted the learned trial court to issue orders to the SHO concerned for implementation of status quo order as also to the Tehsildar concerned with similar directions. In one of the orders, the learned trial court has made it clear to the SHO concerned, that no party shall be harassed while implementing the order of status quo. It further appears that on 30.01.2025, Tehsildar, Khansahib was directed to implement the order of status quo and he was also directed to collect some evidence so that the court is able to come to a conclusion as to what is the position on spot and which party is violating the order of the court.

5) From a perusal of the basic order passed by the learned trial court on 25.01.2025, it appears that the learned trial court has passed the order of status quo without recording any tentative finding as regards the question of possession of the suit property. The learned trial court has not recorded in the order as to which of the parties, on the basis of the material on record, appears to be in possession of the suit property. This elementary flaw in the order of the trial court has led to confusion amongst the police and revenue authorities in implementing the order of the trial court, which in turn has led to multiplicity of proceedings, thereby driving the parties before this Court.

6) In the instant case, the plaintiffs claim to the owners in possession of the suit property. It was incumbent upon the trial court to consider the material placed on record by the plaintiffs in support of their aforesaid claim. If, on the basis of the said material, the learned trial court would have come a tentative finding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property, then, of course, an interim injunction in their favour could have been passed, either by directing the defendants not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land or by recording a tentative finding regarding possession of the suit land and directing the parties to maintain status quo. However, what has been done by the learned trial court is to leave everything to the discretion of the Tehsildar and police agencies which has created chaos and confusion for the parties as well as for the implementing agencies.

7) This Court has time and again expressed its grave concern for the manner in which trial courts are passing status quo orders without specifying as to which of the parties to the dispute is in possession of the suit property. In this regard, following observations of this Court in the case titled “ Shabir Ahmad Ganai vs. Ghulam Mohi ud Din Wani ”