Granting Status Quo Order Without Recording Possession Leads To Ambiguity & Results In Dangerous Consequences: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court emphasised that when the Court intends to pass an Order of status quo concerning the possession, it must record a finding as to who is in possession of the property.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti, Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that granting the Order of status quo without recording the possession leads to ambiguity and results in dangerous consequences.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Revision Petition preferred against the Order of the Additional District Judge.
A Single Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti remarked, “This Court observes that many times, the learned trial courts developed a tendency to take a short-cut method of granting status quo without determining the status of the parties. While ordering Status-Quo, the court must state in unequivocal terms what the Status-Quo is. The Court must state whether the Plaintiff or the defendant is in possession. Granting the order of status quo without recording the possession, in the considered opinion of this court, would leave the matter in doubt and ambiguity, and it would result in dangerous consequences.”
The Bench emphasised that when the Court intends to pass an Order of status quo concerning the possession, it must record a finding as to who is in possession of the property.
Advocate A.V. Pardhasaradhi appeared for the Petitioners/Defendants, while Advocate Tota Tejeswara Rao appeared for the Respondent/Plaintiff.
Brief Facts
The Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the Defendants and along with the suit, filed an Application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking an ad-interim injunction. In the affidavit filed, it was pleaded that the Plaintiff’s father had an ancestral property in the village and the Plaintiff possessed a land. He was in possession and enjoyment of the said land without any obstruction. The Tahsildar, Ranastalam Mandal, updated the Record of Rights (ROR) in respect of land of an extent of Ac.00-52 cents and Ac.00-30 cents, referred supra and issued the pattadar passbook.
The Government released rythu barosa, and the Plaintiff obtained loan from APGV bank, for which the Plaintiff was paying instalments. The Plaintiff approached the Tahsildar and requested him to update his name with respect to Ac.00-71 cents of land. Defendants 1 to 4 were allegedly creating obstructions, and they, being influenced persons, were forcibly trying to trespass into the land and evict the Plaintiff. Hence, the suit and interlocutory application. The Trial Court initially granted ad-interim injunction and thereafter, it modified the same as status quo and directed the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit. This was assailed before the Additional District Judge and the Appellate Court allowed the plea by granting temporary injunction. Hence, the case was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, said, “Many a time, trial Courts are confused between ‘prima facie case’ and ‘prima facie title’, while adjudicating the interlocutory applications filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The expression ‘prima facie case’ is derived from the Latin expression, which means at first sight or based on first impression or on the face of it.”
The Court reiterated that a party approaching the Court is not entitled to an order of injunction as a matter of right and the grant of an interim injunction/permanent injunction is discretionary in nature.
“A person approaching the Court with unclean hands or by suppressing facts will normally not be granted an order of temporary injunction by the Court. … Very often, this court perceives that the learned trial Courts are conducting a mini-trial while adjudicating the injunction applications. In fact, courts need not conduct a mini-trial”, it noted.
The Court further observed that if the Court is convinced, based upon the material, regarding prima facie possession of the Plaintiff, the status quo regarding possession of the suit property shall continue till further Order or disposal of the suit, but a finding to that effect must be recorded.
“If the order of status quo relates to the nature and character of the suit property and the property has to be preserved till disposal of the suit, then also before passing an order of status quo in respect of the nature and character of the property, the conditions thereof obtaining on that date must be indicated (i.e. Demolition and Dispossession). But passing an order of status quo without indicating the status is a shortcut procedure, and such a type of order will further frustrate and complicate the issues. Such a vague order of status quo without indicating status by the civil courts cannot be encouraged at any cost because such an order unnecessarily creates multiplicity of disputes, and such a vague order of status quo does not render any effective service to the litigants”, it also noted.
The Court added that such orders, instead of advancing the cause of justice, are creating problematic situations, where the litigants are filing one Petition after another without knowing where to seek justice.
“Thus, the order under appeal, granting a temporary injunction pending trial, in the considered opinion of this court, does not suffer from any perversity. … In the case at hand, the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it. In fact, as pointed out supra, the trial Court directed the parties to maintain the status quo without recording a finding as to possession of the property and thereby committed irregularity. Hence, the appellate Court corrected the same by exercising appellate jurisdiction. The appellate Court did not substitute its decision. The appellate Court, in fact, considered the documents and strictly adhered to the trinity principles”, it said.
Conclusion
The Court enunciated that in case the suit is dismissed, and that Judgment becomes final, the Code of Civil Procedure safeguards the interest of the Defendant/s by way of Section 95 CPC.
“Thus, a perusal of Section 95 CPC and Order XXXIX Rule 3B CPC (state amendment) allows the defendant to apply for compensation only after the suit is dismissed. Whereas, Order XXXIX Rules 3A (AP State Amendment), empowers the Courts to call upon the applicant to furnish security for the amount of damages at any time pending the injunction. Of course, the language ‘may’ employed in the provision cautions the courts to exercise the jurisdiction in appropriate cases”, it elucidated.
The Court was of the view that while Section 95 and Order XXXIX Rule 3B (A.P. State Amendment) operates post-adjudication upon an application after final Judgment, Order XXXIX Rule 3A (AP State Amendment) enables the Court to call upon the applicant to furnish security for the amount of damages at the interlocutory stage itself; and thus, the legislature safeguarded the interests of both parties to litigation.
“In the case at hand, as stated supra, the appellate Court, having granted a temporary injunction, ought to have called upon the plaintiff to file an affidavit offering security in terms of Rule 3A of Order XXXIX (State Amendment). If such a course had been adopted, it would have safeguarded the interests of the defendants”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition and directed the Plaintiff to file an undertaking affidavit before the Trial Court within four weeks.
Cause Title- Boya Kistamma and Three Others v. Boya Suri (Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2029 of 2025)
