The importance of maintaining status quo and deciding applications for temporary injunction according to law.

U.C. Dhyani, J.

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:

“(i) Set aside the order dated 11.7.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Civil Suit no. 27 of 2016 so far as the learned Court has declined to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner while issuing notices to the defendants.

(ii) Allow the application no. 6C moved by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and the defendants/respondents may be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the property in dispute.”

2. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a Civil Suit against the defendants-respondents for a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. An application for obtaining ad-interim injunction was also filed in the same. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, thought it proper to issue notices to the respondents to file their replies/objections to such application under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 CPC vide order dated 11.7.2016. Aggrieved against the same, present writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.

3. The relief which has been sought by the plaintiff-petitioner against the defendants-respondents is that the defendants be directed not to evict plaintiff from the premises in question, otherwise than in due course of law, which is strongly denied by the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants with the submission that the plaintiff-petitioner is not the tenant in possession.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that assuming for the sake of arguments that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant, he is entitled to the relief prayed for by him, inasmuch as, even an unauthorized occupant cannot be evicted otherwise than in due course of law. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner further submitted that the defendants-respondents have refused to accept the rent from him since March, 2016.

5. The Trial Court record was summoned by learned District Judge while hearing Civil Revision no. 53 of 2016, vide order dated 08.8.2016. The said proceedings have been quashed by this Court. Writ petition no. 2332 of 2016 has been allowed, and, therefore, learned District Judge is directed to send back the file to the Trial Court within three days of production of certified copy of this order.

6. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall prepone the date to 07.9.2016 and decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 CPC and objections thereon, according to law. The respondents-defendants may file objections to such application before the Trial Court by 05.9.2016. Replies thereto may be filed by the plaintiff-petitioner by 06.9.2016 and the hearing will take place on 07.9.2016 and on subsequent dates, if necessary.

7. The parties shall maintain status quo on the suit property till 07.9.2016, whereafter the matter shall be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced either by order of this Court or by the order passed by learned District Judge.