Court reaffirmed the obligation to maintain status quo in legal disputes to prevent harm until resolution, emphasizing judicial responsibility.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned orders dated 26.04.1994 and 22.08.1996 passed in Misc. Case No.524 of 1992 and in Misc. Appeal No.4 of 1995 respectively.

2. The petitioners in this revision were the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 in Misc. Case No.524 of 1992, appellants in Misc. Appeal No.4 of 1995 arising out of the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I and the defendant Nos.1 & 2 in the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I.

The O.Ps in this revision were the petitioner and O.P. No.3 in Misc. Case No.524 of 1992, respondents in Misc. Appeal No.4 of 1995 and plaintiff and defendant No.3 in the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I.

3. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the O.P. No.1 in this revision being the plaintiff filed the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I in the Court of Munsif, Balasore against the petitioners and O.P. No.2 in this revision praying for declaration of his right of passage over the ‘Kha’ schedule suit properties.

In that suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I, the plaintiff filed a Misc. Case No.524 of 1992 under O.39 R.1 & 2 of the CPC, 1908 against the defendants praying for restraining them (defendants) from interfering with his right of passage over the ‘Kha’ Schedule suit properties till the final disposal of the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I stating that,

“he has been using the ‘Kha’ Schedule suit properties since time of his vendor as passage/road in order to reach main road from his purchased land and as such, he has acquired right of easement over the suit passage. For which, the defendants (O.Ps) are to be restrained from making any pucca boundary wall or fence on the same.

To which, the defendants (petitioners in this revision) objected denying the allegations alleged by the plaintiffs against them stating therein that, the plaintiff was/is not using the ‘Kha’ schedule suit land as passage and he (plaintiff) has other way to reach on the main road from his land.

After hearing Misc. Case No.524 of 1992 from both the sides, the learned Munsif, Balasore passed its final order on dated 26.04.1994 and directed both the parties to maintain status quo on the suit land till the final disposal of the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I.

4. On being dissatisfied with the said order dated 26.04.1994 passed in Misc. Case No.524 of 1992, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 challenged the same preferring a Misc. Appeal under O.43 R.1 (r) of the CPC, 1908 vide Misc. Appeal No.4 of 1995 being the appellants against the plaintiff arraying him as respondent No.1 and also arraying defendant No.3 as respondent No.2.

5. After hearing from both the sides, the Appellate Court dismissed that Misc. Appeal No.4 of 1995 of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 (O.P. Nos.1 & 2 in Misc. Case No.524 of 1992) on dated 22.08.1996 and confirmed the order dated 26.04.1994 passed in Misc. Case No.524 of 1992 by the learned Munsif, Balasore.

6. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order dated 22.08.1996 passed in Misc. Appeal No.4 of 1995, the appellants thereof filed this revision being the petitioners against the plaintiff arraying him as O.P. No.1 and also arraying defendant No.3 as O.P. No.2.

7. As none appeared from either side after admission of this revision for hearing, then as per the ratio of the decision between Hukumchand Amolikchand Lodge Vrs. Madhava Balaji Potdar and another reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 600, this revision was taken up for its final disposal on merit on perusal of the materials available in the record. Because, as per law, once a revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 is admitted, the same