Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1668 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Ravi Prakash Agarwal & Ors
RESPONDENT:
Rajesh Prasad Agarwal & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/02/2008
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1668 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16312 of 2006)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal under
Order 41 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in
short ’CPC’)
3. Backgrounds facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit (suit No.445 of
1999) for three reliefs:
(i) The sale deed executed by defendant-respondent
no.1 on 22.2.1999 in favour of defendant-
respondent no.3 be declared as void.
(ii) a permanent injunction be issued restraining the
defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from
the property in dispute.
(iii) Another permanent injunction restraining the
defendants no.1, 2 and 4 from letting, selling and
disposing of the property.
4. An application for injunction was also filed. On 4.5.1999
ex-parte order of injunction was granted. The prayer to modify
the same was rejected. On 24.11.2001 a consent order was
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division
Bench directed disposal of the suit within six months and
further directed maintenance of status quo of the suit property
till its disposal on certain conditions. Subsequently,
application was filed by respondent no.4 by making a
grievance that her counsel was not heard. It is the stand of
the appellants that her defence was struck off. In any event
the order was recalled on 9.1.2002. High Court dismissed the
appeal holding prayer for interim injunction.
5. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that the
order of status quo continued for nine years and by the
impugned order the position has been changed. The
conditions stipulated are really of no consequential relevance,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
as in that case during pendency of the case there may be a
necessity for impleading the vendees.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand,
submitted that the order is really one of concurrence and,
therefore, there was no need to repeat the reasoning.
7. We find that the order of status quo continued for
considerable length of time. It would, therefore, be
appropriate to direct maintenance of status quo as was
originally granted by order dated 24.11.2001. We make it
clear that by giving this protection it shall not be construed as
if we have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
We request the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as early as
practicable preferably by the end of 2008.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed with no order as to
costs.