BINAY CHATTERJEE Vs. KANANBALA CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisional application preferred by the opposite parties against an order of rejection of an application filed under Section 115 A of the Code of Civil Procedure which was thoroughly misconceived and not maintainable. In such misconceived application, the additional District Judge passed an order directing removal of bricks with a further direction upon the local police station to keep watch about the matter so that during the pendency of the suit, no further construction is made by the defendant/respondent or his agent or men. The said application arose out of an order passed by the learned civil Judge, Junior Division in rejecting the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the order of status quo was passed on 11th July, 2001 and in considering the said application, it cannot be said that the state of affair as was existing in 11th July, 2001 has been altered by the petitioner.

(2.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2006 SC 1474 (Kishore Kr. Khaitan �vs- Praveen Kumar) reiterated that it is the obligation of the court to specify the exact nature of the suit property while passing the order of status quo so that in future when an allegation is made with regard to its violation, the court could come to a definite conclusion as to truth or falsity of such claim. It was held in Para-4, which reads as follows:

(3.) THE opposite party submits on the basis of the report of pleader-commissioner that on an inspection made on 25th February, 2001, the pleader-commissioner found that there is an existence of an latrine in the disputed property that is R.S. no. 4645 and whether such latrine was really being used by the opposite party or not on the date when the order of status quo was passed cannot be ascertained from record. However, it is open for the opposite party to approach the Court on the basis of such report and any other material claiming a right to use the said latrine till the disposal of the suit.