Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. P. SRIVASTAVA
KAILASH CHAND GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
RUKAM SINGH YADAV - Respondents
CIV. REVN. 1285 Of 1997
Decided On : 05/14/1998
INJUNCTION - RESTORATION OF STATUS QUO - SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO RESTORE STATUS QUO ANTE IN CASE OF VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and obtained an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the premises in dispute. The defendants violated the injunction and dispossessed the plaintiff from the room in question. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking restoration of possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the defendants had violated the interim injunction granted by the court and dispossessed the plaintiff from the room in question in an illegal manner. The court held that it had jurisdiction to restore the status quo ante prevailing prior to the issuance of the interim injunction.
Issues: Whether the court has jurisdiction to restore status quo ante in case of violation of injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it has jurisdiction to restore status quo ante in case of violation of injunction. The court relied on the decision in the case of Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Cal 220, where it was held that the court has ample jurisdiction and is perfectly justified in passing an order of mandatory injunction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the restoration of possession to the aggrieved party in case such a party had been dispossessed in disobedience of an order of injunction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the defendants.
Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:
Jurisdiction to Restore Status Quo: The court has the authority to restore the status quo ante in cases where an injunction has been violated, including the power to order the return of possession if dispossession occurs in defiance of a court order (!) (!) .
Facts of the Case: The plaintiff obtained an ad interim injunction preventing dispossession from the premises. The defendants violated this injunction by dispossessing the plaintiff, prompting the plaintiff to seek the court’s intervention under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to restore possession (!) (!) (!) .
Court’s Findings: The court found that the defendants had illegally dispossessed the plaintiff despite the injunction, and therefore, the court had the inherent jurisdiction to restore the previous status quo, including ordering the defendants to re-instate the plaintiff’s possession (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Basis for Restoration: The court’s authority to restore the status quo ante in such circumstances is supported by the principle that a court can exercise its inherent powers to undo wrongful dispossession, especially when an injunction has been disobeyed (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Opposition to the Order: The defendants argued that the relief of recovery of possession should not be granted without amending the plaint to explicitly claim such relief, and that granting such relief would alter the nature of the suit. They relied on precedents where amendments were necessary before granting mandatory injunctions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Court’s Rationale: The court distinguished the present case from situations where the subject matter was destroyed before any interim relief was granted. Here, since an injunction was in place and was violated, the court had the jurisdiction to restore possession without requiring an amended plaint (!) (!) (!) .
Final Decision: The court upheld the trial court’s order to restore possession, dismissed the revision petition filed by the defendants, and emphasized that the court’s inherent jurisdiction permits such restorative orders in cases of disobedience of injunctions (!) (!) (!) .
Overall Principle: The court affirmed that it has the authority to pass orders to restore the status quo in cases of violation of injunctions, exercising its inherent powers to ensure justice and uphold the integrity of court orders (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the defendant/applicants as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent.
( 2 ) PERUSED the record.
( 3 ) THE defendant/applicants feel aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court directing the applicants to handover the possession of the room in question to the plaintiff restoring the status quo ante prevailing prior to the grant of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the suit filed by the plaintiff, the trial Court on an application seeking an ad interim injunction filed by the plaintiff, issued an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the premises in dispute directing the parties to maintain status quo till the final disposal of the suit.
( 5 ) A perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that the trial Court had prima facie come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was continuing to be in possesion of the accommodation in dispute of which room in question formed a part.
( 6 ) ON 11-4-1997, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) asserting that the defendants had forcibly dispossessed him from the room in question and obtained the possession thereof in clear defiance of the interim injunction granted in his favour by the Court which continued to be operative. The plaintiff prayed that he be put back in possession over the room in question and a suitable direction be issued in this regard against the defendants Nos. 3 and 4.
( 7 ) THE trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide its impuged order came to the conclusion that the interim order injunction granted by the trial Court had been violated by the defendants in flagrant disregard of the same, the defendants had dispossessed him from the room in question in an entirely illegal manner.
( 8 ) THE trial Court also came to the conclusion that it was fit case where exercising the inherent jurisdiction, the status quo ante prevailing prior to the issuance of the interim injunction which had been duly served be restored back.
( 9 ) IN the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned direction had been issued as indicated hereinabove requiring the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to put back the plaintiff in possession over the room in question within a month.
( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the defendant/applicants has strenuously urged that the impugned order is manifestly illegal as the relief of recovery of possession could not be granted without first getting the plaint amended claiming such a relief especially when the plaintiff had never sought for any relief regarding recovery of possession and had asked for a mere injunction simpliciter.
( 11 ) IT has further been urged that granting of such a relief as prayed for by the plaintiff would amount to changing the nature of the suit and converting it into a suit for recovery of possession without the plaint being amended which could not be permitted.
( 12 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has however urged that in the present case, it has been established on record that the defendants had violated the interm injunction granted by the trial Court and disturbed the status quo prevailing at the time of grant of the interim injunction. In the circumstances, it is urged that the trial Court had ample jurisdiction to restore back status quo ante directing the defendants to put back the plaintiff in possession over the room in question from which he had been illegally dispossessed.
( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the defendant/applicants has placed reliance in support of his submission on the decision in the case of Municipal Council, Mandleshwar v. Ramesh Mangilal Fagna, reported in 1984 MPLJ 633.
( 14 ) IN the aforesaid case, the plaintiff had field a suit for permanent injunction on 22-2-1984, and had applied for a temporary injunction also. The shop which wa
AI
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
