KRISHNA Vs. KANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is against the order granting police protection. The Court has followed certain procedures which are not appropriate. I deem it necessary to set out the mistakes so that such recurrence does not happen.

(2.) In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff has asked for interim relief of injunction as well. The plaintiff's contention was that he was a lessee under one Magha Ram. Magha Ram himself appears to have taken the property on lease from Hari Om and Ompati. The defendant in suit is one Krishna, who claimed the property as a purchaser from Hari Om and Ompati. A suit had been filed previously by the defendant contending that the lease in favour of Magha Ram was not true and valid and claimed that the property had been in her possession. The case concluded, with the Supreme Court holding that her plea was not acceptable and the suit had been dismissed. Magha Ram's lessee Anand Sarup has filed the present suit for injunction contending that the defendant had earlier filed a suit against him claiming possession, and would rely on the dismissal of the said suit as vindicating his claim to possession. When the suit was filed, it appears, the appeal was still pending.

(3.) I must observe that it is grossly inappropriate for a Judge to pass an order of status quo without stating what the status quo is. In a preventive relief of injunction, as opposed to the mandatory relief, the courts are guided by 4 factors: (i) the party's prima facie case, who seeks for injunction; (ii) balance of convenience in his favour; (iii) irreparable loss and hardship, if injunction is not be granted; and (iv) preservation of status quo. Status quo is a manner of preserving the property, if the petitioner's prima facie case seeking for injunction is established. It is intended to ensure that the situation, as stated and found by the court, was preserved. It is never to be understood that such an order could be passed when the Court is in a predicament to decide whether the plaintiff is in possession or the defendant is in possession. It shall never be an order of indecision, but shall be an order on a conscious application of mind by the Court as to what the status of the property is, and how it shall be preserved. An one line order passed on 31.03.2010 that directed to maintain status quo is against the tenor of mandate under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and against the decision of the Supreme Court in Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another Versus Praveen Kumar Singh, 2006 3 SCC 312, where the Supreme Court commented about the impropriety of a Court to pass an order in the initial stage of litigation without indicating what the status quo is. While adverting to the nature of order passed by appellate Court, the Supreme Court said,