RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

                   Mullu Ram

                                           Vs.

                   Kashi Ram, (Rajasthan)

                   Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1154 of 2004
                              (Prakash Tatia, J.)

                   09.08.2004

                   JUDGEMENT

Prakash Tatia, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is against the order dated 29th July, 2004 by which the trial Court
dismissed the injunction application filed by the appellant-plaintiff.

3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of
contract dated 13-1-1984 before the trial Court on 23rd Dec., 1999. According to
appellant, the appellant is in possession of the land in dispute in pursuance of the
agreement to sell and, therefore, his possession is protected by Section 53-A of the
Transfer of Property Act. It is submitted that because the land was not transferred in
the name of the appellant, therefore, the name of the respondent continued in the
revenue record. It is also submitted that the trial Court ignored the important material
piece of evidence, which is the report given by the Tehsildar of the area showing the
possession of the appellant. It is also submitted that the trial Court was under
influence at the order passed by the revenue Court in a suit filed by the respondent-
defendant in the revenue Court and ignored the fact that the order of injunction, which
was passed by the Court of Asstt. Collector, Anoopgarh was modified by the order of
the revenue appellate authority on the basis of interim order passed by the Civil Court
and both the parties were directed to maintain the status-quo even by the revenue
appellate authority.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the ad-interim order to
maintain the status-quo passed by the Civil Court on 27th March, 2000 and it was
continued till it was vacated by the impugned order dated 24th July, 2004. It is
submitted that the suit has been transferred to the Fast Track Court and, therefore, the
suit is likely to be decided in short time. Therefore, the trial Court should not have
vacated the order to maintain the status-quo and should not have dismissed the
injunction application filed by the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that the plaintiff in
claiming right on the basis of the agreement of the year 1984 and has filed the suit in
the year 1999. Before plaintiffs filing the present suit, the defendant already
approached the revenue Court to protect his right. The revenue Court not only passed
the interim order, but directed the appellant not to dispossess the respondent from the
land in dispute. Therefore, at the time when suit was filed by the appellant there was
no occasion for the appellant for grant of injunction. It is also submitted that the
revenue appellate authority merely passed the order on the basis of order passed by the
Civil Court regarding maintaining the status-quo. It is also submitted that there are
serious contradictions in the stand taken by the plaintiff. It is also submitted that all
the relevant records showing the possession , discloses the possession of the defendant
and the trial Court after appreciation of the evidence, held that prima facie the
appellant is not in possession of the property in dispute.

6. I considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. The facts ,which
cannot be disputed are that agreement was of the year 1984 and suit was filed in the
year 1999, before seeking injunction from the Civil Court by the appellant, the
defendant moved revenue Court for protecting his rights in accordance with law where
the Court granted ad interim injunction order and, thereafter confirmed the injunction
order. The trial Court also considered the documentary evidence and gave a detail and
reasoned order. The trial Court also considered the orders passed by the revenue
Court. It may be observed that mere continuation of injunction order for a long time
itself cannot be a ground for confirming the stay order. There may be several reasons
for continuing the ad-interim order. It is true that sometimes it may be relevant factor
because by permitting an order for a long period of time, the parties virtually accept
the position by which they want to abide.

7. Here in this case, the order to maintain status quo was in force as passed by the trial
Court in this case. Before that there was an order of the revenue Court and it was
confirmed on 16th May, 2001. The revenue appellate authority passed the order on
22nd July, 2002 and directed both the parties to maintain the status quo . Therefore,
the ultimate fact remained is that the order to maintain the status quo continued till it
was vacated on 24th July, 2004. The peculiar fact is that since both the Courts below
were under impression that there is order passed by the other Court, therefore,
accordingly, they should pass the order. The fact remained is that the order to maintain
the status quo was continued by both the Courts. In the peculiar facts of this case. I do
not find that the trial Court should have passed the order than to maintain the status
quo.

8. Looking to the reason that the matter is pending in the Fact Track Court, where the
suit is likely to be decided in short time, therefore, in the interest of justice, exercising
power under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code it is ordered that both the parties
should maintain the status quo with respect to the property in dispute and the trial
Court is requested to decide the suit expeditiously within a period of six month from
today.

9. In view of the above observation, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed.

Ordered accordingly.