MOHITA VISHWAS Vs. SUKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts leading to the present case are that the present appellant has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, an application moved by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 was allowed vide order dated 08.07.2016 by the Court of 7 th Civil Judge Class-2 Gwalior. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the first appeal has been filed by the appellant before the Court of Additional District Judge, Gwalior alongwith the said appeal, an application under Section 151 of CPC was moved seeking relief that plaintiff/ appellant is in possession of the suit property and the defendant be restrained from interfering in the possession of the suit property.

(2.) Learned Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior has noted that on 13.03.2015, an application moved by the appellant under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed by the trial Court and no Miscellaneous Appeal was filed against the said order of rejecting the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. It has also come on record that since the said application was dismissed after giving liberty of hearing to the party and no steps were taken to challenge the said order. Now, after dismissal of the suit on application under order 7 Rule 11 being allowed in Miscellaneous Appeal, the appellant is not entitled to the relief of maintenance of status-quo.

(3.) Learned Court has distinguished the law laid down in the case of Vijayaraje Scindia Vs. Jyotiraditya Scindia and ors. as reported in 1994 JLJ 6.