Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Morries Housing Private Limited, challenged an order dated 26/09/2011 passed by the lower Appellate Court in an appeal arising from a suit. The dispute involved property rights between the petitioner and respondent no.1, Kumbla Abdulla Merchant, with respondent no.3, Canara Bank, also a party. The High Court had earlier, on 27/04/2010 in Writ Petition No.191/2010, directed the parties to maintain status quo until the temporary injunction application was decided. Subsequently, the lower Appellate Court allowed an appeal against an order rejecting the plaint and remanded the suit for fresh decision. In the same order, the Appellate Court directed the appellants and respondent no.3 not to dispossess the appellants until disposal of the temporary injunction application. The petitioner argued that upon remand, the earlier status quo order revived, making the Appellate Court's restraint order superfluous and beyond its jurisdiction. The High Court agreed, holding that the Appellate Court's order was in excess of its jurisdiction and set it aside, restoring the earlier status quo order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Revival of Status Quo Order - Upon remand of suit for fresh decision, the earlier status quo order passed by the High Court stands revived, and the Appellate Court cannot pass a fresh restraint order - The Appellate Court's direction to maintain status quo till disposal of temporary injunction application was held to be without jurisdiction as the earlier order already covered the same (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower Appellate Court could pass an order restraining dispossession when a status quo order was already in force and the suit was remanded for fresh decision.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 26/09/2011, and restored the status quo order dated 27/04/2010 passed in Writ Petition No.191/2010.
Law Points
- Status quo order revives upon remand of suit
- Appellate Court cannot pass interim orders beyond its jurisdiction
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (02) 123
Writ Petition No.821 of 2011
Shri S.S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Shri P.S. Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner; Shri A. Kakodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Shri M. Amonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Morries Housing Private Limited
Kumbla Abdulla Merchant, Trust House Hotel & Investment Private Limited (deleted), Canara Bank
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the lower Appellate Court.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside of the lower Appellate Court's order dated 26/09/2011 directing the parties not to dispossess the appellants till disposal of the temporary injunction application.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the lower Appellate Court's order was in excess of its jurisdiction as a status quo order was already in force.
Previous Decisions
The High Court in Writ Petition No.191/2010 on 27/04/2010 directed status quo till disposal of temporary injunction application. The lower Appellate Court allowed an appeal against rejection of plaint and remanded the suit, and also passed the impugned restraint order.
Issues
Whether the lower Appellate Court could pass an order restraining dispossession when a status quo order was already in force and the suit was remanded for fresh decision.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that upon remand, the earlier status quo order revived, making the Appellate Court's restraint order superfluous and beyond its jurisdiction.
Respondents argued in support of the Appellate Court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
Upon remand of a suit for fresh decision, an earlier status quo order passed by the High Court stands revived, and the lower Appellate Court cannot pass a fresh restraint order covering the same subject matter as it would be in excess of its jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that once the suit was remanded for fresh decision, orders passed in the temporary injunction application by this Court came to be revived and, as such, the question of passing any directions to restrain the appellants not to dispossess the respondent no.1 would not arise.
The impugned order is in excess of its jurisdiction and, as such, this Court has to set aside the impugned order in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a suit; the trial court rejected the plaint; the respondent appealed; the lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the rejection, remanded the suit, and passed the impugned restraint order; the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the restraint order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
