A status quo order must be interpreted in light of the orders passed by the lower courts.

COCP-1267-2022 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP-1267-2022 (O&M)

Date of decision: 05.01.2023

Avtar Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Sunita and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-

Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate

for the respondents.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

(Oral)

The petitioner alleges the violation of the order dated

06.12.2021 passed by this Court in CR-1958-2021, vide which in the

revision filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the orders of dismissal

of his application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC by the civil

Judge as well as by the lower appellate Court, this Court has issued

directions that “in the meantime, status quo regarding possession shall be

maintained”.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents

are now raising construction over the suit property.

Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record

photcopies of the order passed by the civil Judge, dated 25.01.2021, as well

as order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, which

are under challenge in the aforesaid revision. The civil Judge, while

dismissing the application of the petitioner, has made following

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI

2023.01.10 09:53

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

COCP-1267-2022 (O&M)

2

observations:

“12......In the present case, the plaintiff is also not

remedy-less and the suit for partition has already been

filed. Being the position as such, the plaintiff is not

entitled for the relief prayed and the defendants are fully

entitled to use and utilize the suit property as per their

share and in their respective khewats. However, they are

having no right in the khewats in which they are not the

co-sharers. Meaning to say, they are entitled to use the

land in the khewats in which they have purchased the

share of the suit property and not in other khewats.

Therefore, the defendants shall not interfere in the joint

possession of plaintiff in the khewats in which the

defendants are not co-sharer and they shall not forcibly

dispossess the plaintiff from its joint possession, during

pendency of this case.

13. With the above said observations, the injunction

application filed by the plaintiff stands disposed off.”

The Additional District Judge, while dismissing the appeal filed

by the petitioner, has upheld the order of the trial Court holding that in the

absence of the plaintiff proving a prima facie case, balance of convenience

is not in his favour and no irreparable loss or illegality is found in the order

passed by the trial Court and the appeal was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since there is

no order of status quo with regard to raising any construction and the

aforesaid status quo order is with a rider “qua possession only”, which,

therefore, in terms of order passed by the Courts below goes in favour of the

respondents, there is no violation of the order passed by this Court.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI

2023.01.10 09:53

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

COCP-1267-2022 (O&M)

3

the orders passed by this Court as well as by the Courts below, no case of

willful disobedience or non-compliance of any order of this Court is made

out as the order of status quo qua possession is to be interpretted in terms of

the orders passed by the civil Judge and lower appellate Court recording a

finding that defendants/respondents are entitled to use the suit property as

per their share in the respective khewats and the petitioner has a remedy of

filing a suit for partition. Moreover, the order of status quo is with a rider of

“qua possession”, therefore, there is no direction qua construction by the

respondents on their share of land.

Accordin