J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the Civil Judge-03, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in CS SCJ No. 891/2023, whereby the Trial Court declined the oral prayer made by the Petitioner for restoration of status quo passed in respect of the entire first floor as well as one shop at Ground Floor of property No. 24/14-B, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi (‘suit property’)

1.1. The Petitioner is the plaintiff and the Respondents are defendants in the civil suit. The civil suit was filed for the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Trial Court on 24.07.2023 had passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property in the presence of counsel for the Respondent No. 2 i.e., defendant No. 2.

2.1. He states as on the date of passing of the status quo order, it is the stand of the Petitioner that the shop at ground floor of suit property was lying vacant and closed.

2.2. He states that the keys of the shop at ground floor of suit property were in the custody of the father of the Respondent No.1 i.e., defendant no.1.

2.3. He states that the Respondent No.2 broke open the lock of shop at ground floor of suit property, on or about 29/30.07.2023 and thus, violated the status quo order granted on 24.07.2023.

2.4. He states that the Petitioner herein immediately on 31.07.2023 filed an appropriate application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’) before the Trial Court for bringing on record the said fact of violation.

2.5. He states that on 03.08.2023, the Petitioner herein in addition made an oral prayer before the Trial Court for restoring the status quo ante qua the shop as the necessary facts for granting the said relief were evident from the record.

He states that the violation of the status quo is writ large on the record.

2.6. He states however, the oral prayer for status quo ante has been rejected by the Trial Court holding that it does not have the requisite jurisdiction to grant such an order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC.

2.7. He states that the said finding of the Trial Court is incorrect as the Trial Court is vested with inherent jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC and Section 151 CPC separately to grant the order of the status quo ante since, the Respondent No.2 has violated the status quo granted as on 24.07.2023. In this regard, he relies upon the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Rajendra Y. Shah Vs. Amu Shares and Securities Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 4101.

3. This Court has considered the submission of the counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.

4. This Court finds merit in the submission of the counsel for the Petitioner that the Trial Court has requisite jurisdiction to grant the relief of the status quo ante in exercise of its power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC as well as in exercise of power under Section 151 CPC; if it comes to the conclusion that Respondent No.2 the status quo order granted by the Trial Court on 24.07.2023.

5. In this regard, it would be instructive to refer the judgment of this Court in Shri Rajiv K. Khanna Vs. Shri Ravinder K. Nayar & Ors. passed on

15.12.2008 in CS (OS) No. 701/2008, wherein this Court has held as under:

“23. Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code, stipulates that in case of disobedience or breach of a term of an interim order, property of the violator can be attached and the violator can be also detained in a civil prison. Attachment can continue for a term of one year and if the breach/disobedience continues, the property can be sold and compensation paid to the injured party. Attachment is to compel compliance and comes to an end when compliance is made. Civil imprisonment is a mode of punishment for being guilty of such disobedience (see, Samee Khan versus Bindu Khan re