SHAHNAZ HUSAIN Vs. MOHD YUNUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short point arises in this appeal from an order of Civil Judge, Aligarh, recalling the order dated 23-8-1990 made on a joint statement of the parties agreeing to maintain status quo of the property in dispute. Aggrieved by this order the defendants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE two plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 and 2, have already purchased a piece of land. THEy had alleged that the respondents were interfering in their possession over the property in dispute saying that it was a park land and no construction could be made on it THE plaintiffs had prayed for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants perpetually from interfering over the land in dispute. THE suit was filed on 17-8-1990. On 23-8-1990, the parties' counsel had consented that both the parties shall maintain status quo of the land in dispute and shall cooperate in early disposal of the suit. In 1992, an application was moved by the plaintiffs that the defendants were delaying the proceedings and, therefore, the order dated 23-8-1990 be withdrawn and the application for temporary injunction moved along with the plaint be heard on merit THE defendants had filed objections against this application. THE learned Civil Judge had come to the conclusion that the defendant-appellants were delaying the proceedings deliberately and, therefore, he had withdrawn the order dated 23-8-1990 and had directed that the application for temporary injunction shall be heard on merit.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents urged that from the very beginning the defendants had couched their written statement so that there may be necessity to amend it from time to time. It was also urged that moving of application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC by other person was also an act motivated by the defendants. They had come just one day before the date of final hearing. This was certainly a step to frustrate the disposal of the suit.