Pending appeal, courts may direct parties to maintain status quo to prevent alienation of disputed property.

The petitioner challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the order dated 13 August 2026 passed by the 11th District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 42/2026, rejecting her application under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

The trial court had declared the plaintiffs to be title-holders of the suit property, declared the sale deed dated 9 October 2014 executed in favour of the petitioner null and void, and restrained the petitioner from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession.

During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiffs applied before the Tahsildar for mutation of their names in the revenue records on the basis of the decree.

The petitioner apprehended that, after mutation, the plaintiffs would alienate the suit property to third parties, causing irreparable prejudice while her appeal remained pending.

Whether the Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC seeking protection against the consequences of the trial court’s judgment and decree during the pendency of the appeal?

Whether, in view of the pending appeal and the petitioner’s apprehension of alienation of the suit property, the parties ought to be directed to maintain status quo pending final adjudication of the appeal?

Whether the appeal should be directed to be decided expeditiously to prevent prejudice to the parties?

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the order passed by the Appellate Court.

It considered the petitioner’s application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, which governs stay of execution of a decree pending appeal and permits the appellate court to grant appropriate interim protection where the circumstances justify it.

The Court also applied the equitable principle of preserving the subject matter of litigation and preventing its alienation or alteration during the pendency of an appeal.

Although the Court did not determine the merits of title, validity of the sale deed, or possession, it directed maintenance of status quo as an interim protective measure and required expeditious disposal of the pending appeal.

The High Court noted that the plaintiffs were pursuing mutation on the basis of the judgment and decree that was already under challenge in the petitioner’s first appeal.

The petitioner’s apprehension that mutation could facilitate alienation of the suit property was considered sufficiently relevant to warrant interim protection, particularly because the petitioner claimed rights under the registered sale deed dated 9 October 2014.

Without entering into the merits of the competing claims, the Court held that the appropriate course was not to permit the dispute to undergo further change during the appeal.

It therefore considered that the Appellate Court should have directed the parties to maintain status quo rather than simply rejecting the application.

To balance the interests of both sides, the Court also directed the Appellate Court to decide the appeal expeditiously after affording proper opportunity of hearing.

The High Court directed the parties to maintain status quo as existing on 9 September 2026 in respect of the subject property during the pendency of the appeal.

The Appellate Court was directed to decide Civil Appeal No. 42/2026 within three months from the next date fixed before it, in accordance with law and after granting proper opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

The parties were further directed to cooperate in the early disposal of the appeal.