Naminder Singh vs Atma Singh

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—Challenge herein is to an order passed on 30.3.2013 by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2-XIV of 2013 reversing thereby the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Una in an application, CMP No. (Civil Suit No. 25 of 2005) 310 of 2010, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby the parties during the pendency of the suit have been directed to maintain status quo qua the suit land.

The bone of contention between the parties in the present lis is land measuring 0.23.05 hectares, allegedly purchased by the respondent-defendant from petitioner-plaintiff out of the total land measuring 0.78.40 hectares entered in Khasra Nos. 101 and 121, Khatauni No. 58 min, Khewat No. 56 min situate in village Khurwain, Tehsil Bangana, District Una vide sale deed No. 588 dated 11.10.2004. Petitioner-plaintiff claims that he never sold the land in dispute to the respondent-defendant and rather agreed to mortgage the same with the respondent-defendant in a sum of Rs. 80,000/- being required by him for his own medical treatment. The respondent-defendant, however, claims that the petitioner-plaintiff had sold the land in dispute vide registered sale deed and he is now owner-in-possession thereof.

It is seen that learned trial Judge after having gone through the given facts and circumstances and also the documents available on record vide order dated 17.12.2012 passed in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the suit land during the pendency of the main suit. Learned District Judge, Una in an appeal preferred against the order so passed by learned trial Court has, however, reversed the same vide order dated 30.3.2013, impugned in the present petition. Learned lower appellate court, no doubt, has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner-plaintiff has put forth an arguable case, however, reversed the interim order passed by learned trial Court on the ground that the balance of convenience does not lie in his favour. Learned lower appellate court while arriving at such a conclusion seems to be influenced by the recitals in the registered sale deed with respect to the delivery of possession of the land in dispute to respondent-defendant.

Having gone through the record and also taking into consideration the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and also other legal complications of like nature, an order directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the suit land would serve the ends of justice for the reason that there exists an arguable case in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff as he has disputed the execution of sale deed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The allegations as per the version of the respondent-defendant, no doubt, are wrong because as per his case, he is the bona fide purchase of the land in dispute on payment of consideration and even has been put in possession also thereof. The claims and counter-claims so laid by the parties, however, will be determined on the basis of evidence, oral as well as documentary, they will produce during the trial of the case. Therefore, without lamenting much on the merits of the case at this stage when the question of grant of interim injunction is under consideration, suffice would it to say that no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent-defendant in case the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua the land in dispute during the pendency of the main suit.

True it is that earlier the wife of the petitioner-plaintiff and his daughter have challenged the legality and validity of this very sale deed by filing two separate suits, however, those suits were ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, meaning thereby that there was no adjudication on merits in those suits. Of course, the interim injunction was declined in those suit also, however, the filing of the suits and declining the prayer with regard to interim injunction is hardly of any consequence in the matter of grant or refusal of the grant of injunction in the present lis.

In the sale deed there is recital of the delivery of possession to the respondent-defendant. In the written statement nothing, however, has come that the respondent-defendant after the execution of sale deed was put in possession also of the suit land on the spot, no doubt, in the written statement he has specifically claimed that he is in possession thereof. As already noted in para supra, the parties have yet to undergo the trial and to prove their respective case as set out in the pleadings. However, at this stage when this Court has concluded that there exists an arguable case in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and even balance of convenience also lies in his favour coupled with the factum of the comparative mischief likely to be caused by declining such relief to him, shall be greater as compared to the respondent-defendant, the present is a case where the interim relief, i.e. a direction to the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the land in dispute during the pendency of the suit would serve the ends of justice. Learned trial Judge, therefore, has rightly passed the order to this effect. Learned lower appellate court has, however, quashed and set aside the same while mis-appreciating and misconstruing the given facts and circumstances and also the material available on record at this stage. The impugned order, therefore, is not legally and factually sustainable and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by learned trial Judge in CMP No. 310 of 2010 (Civil Suit No. 25 of 2005) is restored.

Keeping in view the suit is old one, it is expected from learned trial Judge to dispose it of expeditiously, however, not beyond 31st December, 2014. The parties through learned counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on 25th July, 2014. The record alongwith a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court so as to reach there well before the date fixed.

With the above observations, this petition stands accordingly disposed of so also the pending applications, if any.