Granting Status Quo Orders Without Recording Possession Leads To Ambiguity In Property Disputes: AP High Court

While dealing with a case where the Trial Court modified an ad-interim injunction into an order of status quo without recording who was in possession of the suit property, Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed,

“… trial courts developed a tendency to take a short-cut method of granting status quo without determining the status of the parties. While ordering Status-Quo, the court must state in unequivocal terms what the Status-Quo is. The Court must state whether the Plaintiff or the defendant is in possession. Granting the order of status quo without recording the possession, in the considered opinion of this court, would leave the matter in doubt and ambiguity, and it would result in dangerous consequences. It is desirable and appropriate that when the court intends to pass an order of status quo concerning the possession, the court must record a finding as to who is in possession of the property. If the court is convinced, based upon the material, regarding prima facie possession of the plaintiff, the status quo regarding possession of the suit property shall continue till further order or disposal of the suit. But a finding to that effect must be recorded.”

“If the order of status quo relates to the nature and character of the suit property and the property has to be preserved till disposal of the suit, then also before passing an order of status quo in respect of the nature and character of the property, the conditions thereof obtaining on that date must be indicated (i.e. Demolition and Dispossession). But passing an order of status quo without indicating the status is a shortcut procedure, and such a type of order will further frustrate and complicate the issues. Such a vague order of status quo without indicating status by the civil courts cannot be encouraged at any cost because such an order unnecessarily creates multiplicity of disputes, and such a vague order of status quo does not render any effective service to the litigants. Such orders, instead of advancing the cause of justice, are creating problematic situations, where the litigants are filing one petition after another without knowing where to seek justice” the single judge added.

Background

The Court was dealing with a revision petition where the plaintiff/respondent had been in possession of a parcel of ancestral land before the defendants/petitioners started creating obstructions by forcibly trying to trespass and evict the plaintiff from the said land. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants, alongwith an interlocutory application seeking ad-interim injunction.

The Trial Court initially granted an ad-interim injunction. However, by an order dated 25.09.2023, the Trial Court disposed of the interlocutory application, modifying the ad-interim injunction as status quo and directed the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit. Upon appeal against the order of the Trial Court by the plaintiff, the Appellate Court restored temporary injunction. Aggrieved, the defendants/petitioners challenged the said order before the High Court.

Court's Findings:

At the outset, the Court noted that the grant of an injunction is discretionary, and the same must be exercised on the settled principles of law to advance the cause of justice. It further enlisted the cardinal principles and the trinity test for the grant of an injunction which mandates satisfaction of the following aspects— (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff; (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if his prayer for an interlocutory injunction is disallowed.

Further explaining the impute of an injunction, the Court stated,

“An injunction is a judicial process by which a party is required to do or refrain from doing any particular act. It is like a preventive relief to a litigant to prevent future possible injury. The decision whether or not to grant an injunction must be taken at a time when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation, both contested and remain uncertain till they are established in trial, on evidence. The relief, by way of interlocutory injunction, needs to be granted to mitigate injustice to the plaintiff during the period before the uncertainty can be resolved. The object of ad-interim/exparte/temporary injunction is to protect the plaintiff against an injury by violation of its right, for which it cannot be adequately compensated in damages if the uncertainty were to be resolved at the trial.”

Reiterating that the parties approaching the Court are not entitled to injunction as a matter of right and referring to exhibits submitted during the trial, the Court observed,

“Thus, a perusal of Exs.P1 and P3 on one hand and Ex.R4 on the other hand, prima facie demonstrates his possession over Ac.00-52 cents of land in survey No.43-1-A-2 and possession of defendant No.1 over Ac.1-33 cents of land in survey No.43-1-A-3. Thus, the appellate Court is prima facie satisfied regarding the plaintiff‟s possession over the plaint/petition schedule property, based on the revenue records. The genuineness or otherwise of the revenue records will be adjudicated at the trial, and the competent Civil Court will record a finding thereafter.”

With respect to the Trial Court altering the initial ad-interim injunction into status quo, the Court held that the same was not legally acceptable, and thus, the impugned order of the Appellate Court granting a temporary injunction pending trial was held to not suffer from any perversity. The Single Judge reasoned,

“In the case at hand, the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it. In fact, as pointed out supra, the trial Court directed the parties to maintain the status quo without recording a finding as to possession of the property and thereby committed irregularity. Hence, the appellate Court corrected the same by exercising appellate jurisdiction. The appellate Court did not substitute its decision.”

Lastly, with respect to the issue whether the plaintiff/petitioner, who had the benefit of temporary injunction without sufficient reasons, was liable to compensate the other side, the Court held that the plaintiff may be directed to compensate the defendant under Section 95 of CPC (allows compensation after a suit is dismissed if the injunction of unwarranted) or Order XXXIX Rules 3A and 3B (empowers Courts to demand security from the plaintiff even at the interlocutory stage to protect the defendant against potential loss).

Against this backdrop, the Court held,

"Though the revision is filed by the defendants assailing the order of the appellate court granting temporary injunction, since the appellate court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it i.e. calling upon the plaintiff to offer security in terms of Order XXXIX Rule 3A (State Amendment), while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court certainly, in the interest of both the parties, can direct the plaintiff to file an affidavit in terms of Order XXXIX Rule 3A (State Amendment) before the trial court. Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to file an undertaking affidavit before the Trial Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”

The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

Case Details:

Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2029 of 2025

Case Title: BOYA KISTAMMA v. BOYA SURI

Click Here To Read/Download Order