Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65651
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
M.Ponmozhi – Appellant
Versus
M.Alli – Respondent
A.No.3858 of 2025 in C.S. No.344 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Eghambaram
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Girishankar for D2
The court clarified that an interim order of status quo automatically ceases upon disposal of relevant applications unless extended by further judicial order.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order XIV, Rule 8 - Clarification of status quo order - Application filed to clarify that status quo should continue pending the disposal of the suit - The court found no error in the execution court’s findings that the status quo had extinguished upon the disposal of the application on 02.07.2024. (Paras 6, 8)
(B) Execution Proceedings - The scope of the executing court’s jurisdiction and rights of petitioners in obstruction applications were discussed, emphasizing that these matters must be handled independently as per statutory provisions. (Paras 7)
(C) Precedent - The Supreme Court's ruling in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh addressed conditions for vacating interim orders, but the court distinguished its applicability to the present case based on specific legal context. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The application seeks clarification of an order maintaining status quo in ongoing execution proceedings amidst allegations of potential hardship to the plaintiffs.
Findings of Court:
The execution court’s findings were upheld confirming the extinguishment of status quo post-disposal of the earlier application.
Issues: The main question addressed was whether the order of status quo granted could continue after the disposal of the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that interim orders automatically merge with final orders upon disposal, and status quo cannot continue indefinitely without judicial basis.
Result: Application closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. clarification of status quo order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. execution court's findings upheld. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. statutory independence of execution applications. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. interim orders merge with final rulings. (Para 7) |
For Plaintiffs : Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Eghambaram For defendants : Mr.V.Girishankar for D2 ********** O R D E R This Application has been filed seeking clarification of my order dated 14.06.2024 granting status quo in E.P. No. 4715 of 2023 pending before the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. I have heard Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Eghambaram, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Mr.V.Girishankar, learned counsel for the second defendant.
3.The learned Senior Counsel would contend that while taking up Application in A.No.2454 of 2024 in C.S. No.344 of 2014, on 14.06.2024, I had passed an order granting status quo in the Execution Proceedings in E.P. No.4715 of 2023 pending before the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
4. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the said order of status quo should be granted till disposal of the suit in C.S. No.344 of 2014 since otherwise, the plaintiffs would be put to serious hardships and they would be left high and dry, without any remedy. He would also bring to my notice that in the EP proceedings as well, an Application has been taken for obstructing the Execution Proceedings and the same has been returned by the Executing Court, citing pendency of the present proceedings.
5. In fact, even before the Executing Court, it has been contended by the Applicants herein that the status quo order granted was in force. However, the Executing Court has rejected the said contentions stating that the Application in I.A. No.2454 of 2024 was subsequently disposed of on 02.07.2024 and no order of status quo has been granted or even the earlier order granting status quo has not been extended.
6. I do not find any error or infirmity in the said findings arrived at by the Executing Court. In fact only considering the pendency of Application in A.No.2454 of 2024, I had granted an interim order of status quo pending disposal of the said Application in A.No.2454 of 2024. However, when the said Application was subsequently, disposed of on 02.07.2024, I had neither extended the order of status quo nor given any directions regarding the Execution Proceedings. Therefore, as rightly found by the Executing Court, the order of status quo granted on
14.06.2024 stood extinguished with the order dated 02.07.2024.
7. As regards the contention of Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel that the first plaintiff has filed an Execution Application to treat her as an obstructor in the EP proceedings, the learned Senior Counsel states that the Trial Court has not entertained the said Appliction to treat the first plaintiff as an obstructor in the EP proceedings. The pendency of the suit cannot be an impediment for the Executing Court to entertain the obstructor Application, if it is otherwise in order. It is an independent right that is available to the petitioenrs and the Executing Court has to deal with the case separately and in accordance with law.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs Mr.R.Singaravelan, has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267 , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the interim order of stay can come to an end only by (i) disposal of main case, and (ii) by judicial order vacating relief passed after hearing the contesting parties and further held that the order of stay cannot be vacated only on the ground of lapse of time where the litigant is not responsibile for dealy. I do not see how this decision would apply to the facts of the present case, since I had granted the order of status quo of Execution Proceedings only pending dispos
