Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY
Amiya Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
Amar Das – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial hearing and case details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations of interim order violation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's focus on status-quo maintenance. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal authority to enforce interim order. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. direction for fresh application before trial court. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. S.S.Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. K. Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and Mr. R.K. Swain, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3.
3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner (Plaintiff) submits that initially an interim order dated 14th August 2018 was passed by the Trial Court directing inter alia present Opposite Parties 1 & 2 (Defendants No.29 & 32) not to alienate the property in favour of third party along with the direction to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property. But said Defendants No.29 & 32 by violating the order of the Trial Court alienated part property in favour of present Opposite Party No.3 during pendency of the suit, who was subsequently arrayed as a party in the suit as Defendant No.42. Then Defendant No.42 started construction over the suit property purchased by him from Defendants No
The court emphasized the necessity of enforcing interim orders and provided guidance on using police assistance for compliance in cases of ongoing violations.
Courts must ensure the enforcement of status quo orders, exercising inherent powers as necessary, especially when other remedies are inadequate.
The court affirmed its inherent authority to issue preservation orders under Article 227 and Section 151 of CPC, regardless of injunction criteria not being satisfied, emphasizing the maintenance of ....
Power of Court, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, is to preserve subject matter of lis and to maintain status quo, regarding suit property, as, it exists on date of inception of lis between parties.
The proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC are quasi-criminal in nature, and willful disobedience must be proved beyond a shadow of doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation of a status-quo order must be seen in the context in which it was passed, and any violation must be willful, deliberate, or....
Trial courts must specify possession in status quo orders to prevent ambiguity and ensure effective implementation.
The trial court has the jurisdiction to grant the relief of status quo ante under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC and Section 151 CPC if the status quo order is violated by the respondent.
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
