3 May 2023 10:52 AM GMT
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that where an order of status quo is not specific, the same must be construed in respect of the prayer made in the application seeking temporary injunction.The division bench comprising Justices Sheel Nagu and Dwarka Dhish Bansal observed- ...this Court is of the considered opinion that when the order of status-quo is not specific, then it should...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that where an order of status quo is not specific, the same must be construed in respect of the prayer made in the application seeking temporary injunction.
The division bench comprising Justices Sheel Nagu and Dwarka Dhish Bansal observed-
...this Court is of the considered opinion that when the order of status-quo is not specific, then it should be read and construed only in relation to the prayer made by way of application(s) for temporary injunction and the scope of order of status-quo cannot be expanded to the other things beyond the prayer made in the aforesaid two applications under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
The facts of the case were that the Applicant had moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC against the Respondents for violating the operational temporary injunction ordered by the Court. The Applicant asserted that the Court had restrained the Respondents from alienating the suit property or creating third party right. It was contended that contrary to the directions of the Court, the Respondents were carrying out demolition and construction activities over the suit property and had created third party right over the same.
Per contra, the Respondents asserted that they had not breached the injunction operating against them. They pointed out that the temporary injunction was in respect of alienation/creation of third party rights. However, they neither created any third property right nor did they alienate the property.
Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court found merit in the submissions of the Respondents. It brought its attention to the document produced by the Applicant to demonstrate that the Respondents had alienated the property. The Court noted that the said document is in relation to an agreement of license for five years and is not tantamount to alienation of property by the Respondents.
Perusing its order of temporary injunction against the Respondents, the Court observed that the order of status quo was with respect to the alienation of suit property /creation of third rights. Thus, it could not be held that the Respondents were in violation of the Court’s order.
With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that there were no grounds on which the Respondents could be held guilty for disobedience of its order of maintaining status quo. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
Cause Title: Vikram Shrivastava v. Rampur Finance Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [M.C.C.: 354/2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 59
Click Here To Read/Download Order