Ravi Prakash Agarwal & Ors. v. Rajesh Prasad Agarwal & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT
P. SATHASIVAM
Judgment Date: 2008-02-29
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal disposed of. The Court held that the status quo order had continued for a considerable length of time and directed that the protection be maintained as originally granted by the High Court on 24.11.2001, while directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as early as practicable, preferably by the end of 2008. The Court clarified that this order does not express any opinion on the merits of the case and granted no costs to either side.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of; no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ravi Prakash Agarwal & Ors.

Respondents

Rajesh Prasad Agarwal & Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Rakesh Dwivedi
• Ritesh Agarwal
• M.Z. Chaudhary
• Anis Ahmed Khan

Counsels for Respondents

• Dinesh Dwivedi
• Shrish Kumar Misra
• Ajay Kr. Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Civil Appeal arising from an Allahabad High Court Division Bench order under Order 41 Rule 1 of the CPC directing maintenance of status quo in a dispute concerning a property transaction. The appellants filed Suit No. 445 of 1999 challenging a sale deed dated 22.2.1999 executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.3, seeking declaration that the deed is void and requesting permanent injunction restraining dispossession and further restraint on sale, letting or disposal of the property. An injunction was granted ex parte on 4.5.1999; on 24.11.2001 a Division Bench consent order directed disposal of the suit within six months and ordered status quo until disposal on certain conditions. Subsequently, respondent No.4 obtained a grievance that her counsel was not heard; the order was recalled on 9.1.2002. The appellants argued that the status quo order had continued for about nine years and that the impugned order altered the position; they contended the conditions attached to status quo were largely immaterial should the suit be promptly disposed, including possible impleading of vendees. The respondents contended the order was effectively a concurrence and required no re-argument. The Supreme Court held that the status quo had persisted too long but directed that the original protection be maintained while ordering the trial court to dispose of the suit promptly, clarifying no view on merits. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 1(r) of the CPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the High Court’s status quo order granted in 2001 had persisted for nine years and that the impugned order alters the position. They argued that the conditions attached to the status quo were largely immaterial for the pendency of the suit and that the court should preserve the original protection granted on 24 November 2001. They urged that the Trial Court be directed to dispose of the suit promptly, preferably by the end of 2008, and that the possibility of impleading vendees should not derail the protection in place. In essence, they sought to retain the status quo until final disposal and to avoid dilatory steps that could prejudice their rights during the proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submitted that the order is, in effect, a concurrence and there was no need to reiterate the reasoning. They contended that the court need not revisit the merits and that the protective order should stand as a measure to maintain status quo without reopening the matter on merits.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

• • ,. .. A ## [2008] 3 S.C.R. 642 RAVI PRAKASH AGARWAL & ORS. _v._ RAJESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1668 of 2008) B FEBRUARY 29, 2008 ## (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) • ## _Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 0.41 R.41(r):_ _Appeal under, against order of Division Bench of High_ c _Court directing to maintain status quo in respect of property in dispute_ - _Application_ - _Order recalled and order granting interim injunction vacated by_ th~ _High Court- On appeal, Held: Order of the Division Bench of the High Court granting maintenance of status quo continued for considerable period_ D _of time_ - _Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to continue the said order of the High Court_ - _Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit at the earliest_ - _Directions issued._ c Appellants filed a suit and an application for E[injunction ][for ][declaring ][the ][sale ][deed ][executed ][by ] respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.3 as void and for issuance of permanent injunction against them restraining them from dispossessing and also from selling, letting and disposing of the property. The trial Court granted the injunction against the respondents. The F order was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court directing the parties to maintain status quo of the property in question. Subsequently, on the application filed by respondent No.4, the order was recalled and the appeal was dismissed by the High Court.. Hence the G present appeal. Appellant contended that the order of the High Court granting status quo continued for nine years and by the impugned order the position has been changed. - .. • ~ .. H 642 643 RAVI PRAKASH AGARWAL & ORS. _v._ RAJESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.) - "i •[.. ] ~ ~ ## Disposing of the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1.1 The order of status quo continued for considerable length of time. It would, therefore, be· appropriate to direct maintenance of status quo as ·was originally granted by the High Court vide its order dated B 24.11.2001. (Para- 7) [644-G, 645-A] 1.2 It is clarified that by giving this protection it shall not be construed as if this Court has expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The Trial Court to dispose of the suit as early as practicable. (Para ...,. 7) c [645-A] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1668 of 2008. - . From the final Judgment and Order dated 13/7/2006 of D the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in F.A.F.O. No. 1741/ 2001. Rak!'lsh Dwivedi, Ritesh Agarwal, M.Z. Chaudhary and Anis Ahmed Khan for the Appellants. E Dinesh Dwivedi, Shrish Kumar Misra and Ajay Kr. Singh for the Respondents. ~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 {r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') F G 3. Backgrounds facts in a nutshell are as follows: ... • The appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit (suit No.445of1999) for three reliefs: (i) The sale deed executed by defendant-respondent H 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS - A no.1 on 22.2.1999 in favour of defendant-respondent no.3 be declared as void. B - (ii) a permanent injunction be issued restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the property in dispute. - (iii) Another permanent injunction restraining the defendants no.1, 2 and 4 from letting, selling and disposing of the property. .. c 4. An application for injunction was also filed. On 4.5.1999 ex-parte order of injunction was granted. The prayer to modify the same was rejected. On 24.11.2001 a consent order was passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench directed disposal of the suit within six months and further D[directed maintenance ][of ][status quo ][of ][the suit property till its ] disposal on certain conditions. Subsequently, application was - .. filed by respondent no.4 by making a grievance that her counsel was not heard. It is the stand of the appellants that her defence was struck off. In any event the order was recalled on 9.1.2002. E[High Court dismissed the appeal holding prayer for interim ] injunction. 5. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that the order of status quo continued for nine years and by the impugned order the position has been changed. The conditions stipulated F are really of no consequential relevance, as in that case during pendency of the case there may be a necessity for impleading the vendees. "- 6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, G[submitted that the order is really one of concurrence and, ] therefore, there was no need to repeat the reasoning. 7. We find that the order of status quo continued for considerable length of time. It would, therefore, be appropriate H[to direct maintenance ][of ][status quo as was originally granted ] 4" • RAVI PRAKASH AGARWAL & ORS. _v._ RAJESH 645 PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] - ' .. . by order dated 24.11.2001. We make it clear that by giving this A protection it shall not be construed as if we have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. We request the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as early as practicable preferably by the end of 2008. 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed with no order as to costs. S.K.S. Appeal disposed of. B .. ---