RAMDIYA Vs. TAJINDER KUMAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant wants an interference in the order of injunction issued by the trial court and the appellate court at the interlocutory stage on the basis of a corrected entry in Khasra girdawari in his favour in the year 2013, that is, after the institution of the suit. The courts below have allowed for the injunction to be issued in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of Khasra Girdawari entry. An official entry in revenue records surely affords a prima facie proof and I will find no error in the order of the courts below for intervention.

(2.) The counsel argues that the Lower Court's order may be modified to provide for status quo order to be made. It is a fallacious assumption that status quo order should be made whenever the court is indisicive about who is in possession. It would mean abdication of duty by court to pass an order of status quo without specifying what the status quo is. Any interim order of injunction itself is only for the preservation of the status quo. If the court finds that there is a prima facie case of the plaintiff's possession of the property and grants an injunction, it also means that the court is preserving the status quo in the manner in which it found.

(3.) The order cannot be modified in any manner. Needless to state that this adjudication will be only for the purpose of interlocutory order and the final decision in suit will not be in any way influenced by the interim adjudication.