The court should ascertain the present physical features of the property before passing a status quo order under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed seeking an order to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 30/04/2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Dindigul, in IA No.6 of 2024 in OS No.276 of 2019. 2.The facts in brief:-

Suit in OS No.276 of 2019 was filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration that the suit property absolutely belongs to him by virtue of sale deed dated 18/03/2003, permanent injunction and costs. Pending further process, IA No.6 of 2004 was taken out by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction with the following averments mostly repeating the averments made in the plaint. So, it is not necessary for the present discussion to extract the averments in detail.

3.Only relevant facts are stated herein. The suit property called as 'Senthil Residency' belongs to the defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiff became a lessee in 2000. In 2003, there was sale deed dated 11/08/2003 between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 for sale consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000/-. The plaintiff undertook to settle the encumbrance to the tune of Rs. 45,40,323/- to the defendants 1 to 4 and 69 creditors.

After deducting that amount, the balance sale consideration was received by the defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiff was put in possession.

4.Later the plaintiff came to know that because of the default committed by M/s.Ravi and Co, attachment order was passed by the Government. Property was seized and sealed by the competent authority. He approached the competent authority and possession was handed over to him. Attachment order was raised in view of the settlement of dues to the creditors. These are the plaint averments in brief.

5.When the sale deed is executed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants have no right in the property and so they should not alter the physical features by making construction, demolition, etc. With that, he filed the petition seeking interim injunction.

6.When the matter was came up before the trial court on 26/04/2024, along with some photos and memos, it was submitted on the side of the plaintiff/petitioner that pending the suit, the defendants/respondents are making alternations. So, status quo must be maintained. 7.Appellants counsel appeared before the trial court and stated that they starting the alternation work with the permission of the Corporation. Both were heard by the trial court and it was posted for orders on 30/04/2024.

On that date, the impugned order was passed.

8.Challenging the impugned order directing the appellants herein to maintain the status quo till the disposal of the main IAs, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred.

9.Heard both sides. 10.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would straightaway draw the attention of this court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another Vs. Praveen Kumar Singh [(2006)3 SCC 312] as to passing of the orders in the manner now passed by the trial court.

11.What he tries to impress upon the court is that ordering status quo is an omnibus order, which ought not to have been passed by the trial court without ascertaining the physical features or the present status of the alternation or construction as the case may be.

12.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that since opportunity was given to the appellants to put forth their counter, in-spite of that, they are dragging the matter to that advantage. Now they are putting up alteration and modification of the structures even without the prior permission from the local authorities. Apart from that, it is also submitted by him that by virtue of the sale deed, he was put in possession of the property. If any alternation or modification is made, it will affect his interest. According to the respondent, the suit was filed in 2019. No statement was filed. He invested more than Rs.2 Crores and the appellants taken away all the article