Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 14.06.1986 along with a relief of injunction. During the suit, they sought to restrain the defendants from disturbing their possession. The trial court rejected that application on 05.10.2016. On appeal, the appellate court partly allowed the appeal by restraining the defendants from creating third party rights but refused to grant the temporary injunction restraining disturbance of possession. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed the present writ petition. The High Court noted that while issuing notice on 01.11.2016, it had directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property. The plaintiffs' counsel argued that the Tahsildar had recorded a finding on 23.06.2016 that the plaintiffs were in possession, which was upheld by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Collector. The defendants' counsel opposed, alleging that the plaintiffs had cut crops after the status quo order. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the appellate court had already restrained the defendants from creating third party rights. Considering the revenue records indicating plaintiffs' possession and the fact that the suit was pending since 2016, the court directed the trial court to expedite the suit and dispose it of within one year. The status quo order was directed to continue until the disposal of the suit. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Specific Performance - Possession - The appellate court partly allowed the appeal by restraining defendants from creating third party rights but refused to restrain them from disturbing plaintiffs' possession. The High Court held that in view of the revenue records showing plaintiffs' possession and the fact that the suit was for specific performance, the status quo order passed earlier should continue and the trial be expedited. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in refusing to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property pending disposal of the suit for specific performance.
Final Decision
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the trial court to expedite the suit and dispose it of within one year. The status quo order passed on 01.11.2016 was directed to continue until the disposal of the suit. The appellate court's order was modified to the extent that the defendants were restrained from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession during the pendency of the suit.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- Specific performance
- Possession
- Status quo
- Expeditious trial
