Status Quo in Partition Suits Precludes Unilateral Construction Altering the Suit Property’s Nature and Character

The appeal arose from an ad interim order of status quo passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Basirhat in a partition suit (Title suit No. 1138 of 2025).

The Trial Court had concurrently ordered the maintenance of status quo regarding the nature and joint possession of the suit property while also restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs from constructing a boundary wall over the property.

The defendants challenged this order on the grounds that the two directions were contradictory and failed to specify the location of the proposed wall.

Whether an ad interim order allowing construction of a boundary wall is sustainable when the court has simultaneously ordered status quo regarding the nature, character, and joint possession of a property in a partition suit.

The Court applied the fundamental principle of civil jurisprudence regarding the preservation of lis pendens property, which dictates that in a suit for partition, the primary objective of an interim order is to preserve the suit property in its current state to prevent the creation of third-party rights or irreparable change in character.

Specifically, the doctrine of consistency in judicial orders was applied, implying that a court cannot grant a status quo order to "preserve" a property while simultaneously permitting a party to alter the "nature and character" of that property through new construction.

The High Court found the Trial Court’s order "vitiated" due to internal contradictions.

The Court reasoned that if a status quo order is required to preserve the property during the pendency of a partition suit, permitting one party to construct a boundary wall—without qualifying whether it is for the perimeter or through the joint property—violates the very essence of the status quo.

The Court observed that the Trial Court failed to reconcile how construction could be permitted while simultaneously ordering the maintenance of the "nature, character, and joint possession" of the land.

Consequently, the High Court determined that the portion of the order allowing construction was inconsistent with the objective of preserving the property until the final disposal of the injunction application.

The Court set aside the direction restraining the defendants from obstructing the construction of the boundary wall.

The modified holding restricts the interim relief solely to an order of status quo regarding the nature, character, and joint possession of the suit property to be maintained by both parties until the temporary injunction application is formally disposed of.

The Trial Court was directed to hear the application on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in this appeal.