Courts may restore status quo ante when a party wrongfully alters possession during pending litigation.

The opposite party’s appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 challenged an Estate Officer’s order.

A stay of that order was initially granted, but the appellate court later refused to extend it.

On 15 December 2025, the High Court directed the parties to maintain status quo concerning the property’s nature, character and possession, initially until 10 January 2026 and for a further five months or until disposal of the appeal, whichever occurred first.

The appeal hearing was adjourned on 12 May 2026, while the status quo order was subsisting.

SMPK took possession and placed a padlock on the property on 16 June 2026, the day before the next hearing.

On 17 June, the appellate court directed the parties to maintain status quo until disposal of the appeal.

It later ordered the Estate Officer to remove the padlock pending final adjudication.

SMPK challenged that direction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the appellate court was justified in directing removal of the padlock and restoring the prior possession, although no injunction was subsisting on the date SMPK took possession.

2. Whether the status quo direction of 17 June 2026 required the parties to preserve the position existing on that date, or continued the status quo concerning possession that had existed when the High Court made its order on 15 December 2025.

Article 227 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 provides the statutory appeal in which the underlying dispute was pending.

Under Indian Cable Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sumitra Chakraborty, when a party wrongfully alters the status quo, the court may grant an interlocutory mandatory injunction to restore the status quo ante and should not allow the wrongdoer to benefit from the alteration.

Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden recognises that interlocutory mandatory injunctions may compel the undoing of acts illegally done or restore what was wrongfully taken.

The Court also considered Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India on restraining misuse of statutory power and Pratap Singh v. Gurbak Singh on conduct tending to interfere with the due course of justice, but held those decisions distinguishable on the facts.

The Court construed the 15 December 2025 order as preserving the opposite party’s possession, which SMPK did not dispute existed on that date.

It read the appellate court’s 17 June direction as continuing that earlier status quo, rather than adopting the position as it stood on 17 June after SMPK had taken possession.

The Court emphasised that the status quo order was subsisting when the appeal hearing was adjourned on 12 May, and found no pressing justification for SMPK to take possession on 16 June, immediately before the scheduled hearing.

Applying Indian Cable Company and Dorab Cawasji Warden, it held that refusing to remove the padlock would allow SMPK to benefit from its wrongful alteration of the position pending appeal.

The revisional application was dismissed without costs.

The Court also refused SMPK’s post-judgment request to stay the judgment.