LexRAVI PRAKASH AGARWAL & ORS. versus RAJESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 642
• •
,. ..
A
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):
c
Appeal under, against order of Division Bench of High
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.
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
•
F
Court granted the injunction against the respondents. The
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
RAVI PRAKASH AGARWAL & ORS. v. RAJESH
643
-
"i
PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
• ..
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.
F
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')
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
[2008) 3 S.C.R. .
.
,. •
A
no.1 on 22.2.1999 in favour of defendant-respondent
no.3 be declared as void.
(ii)
a permanent injunction be issued restraining the
defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from
B
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 stipulatedExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.