LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

DHARAM SINGH vs SEWA SINGH on 15 September, 2008

Cites 0 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
C.A. No.-005716-005716 - 2008Official PDFAdvocates P. I. JOSE | C. K. SUCHARITA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5716 OF 2008
[Arising out of SLP(C)No.2617 of 2007]
DHARAM SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SEWA SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana in the Revisional Application filed by the respondent No.1

herein praying for grant of police held to enforce an order of injunction, which had

been passed in the suit filed by him in respect of the suit property. In the said

order of the High Court, mention has been made in respect of a suit in which an

order of status quo had been passed. Despite noticing the order of status quo the

High Court was of the view that it was the duty of the court to enforce the

order of

injunction which had been passed subsequently.

It may be mentioned that in the suit filed by the respondent no.1, in

the application for temporary injunction or even at the time of hearing of the said

application, the order of status quo, which had been passed in the appeal filed by

the appellant herein was not mentioned or considered. Inasmuch as, the order of

status quo was already in place, there was no necessity of passing a specific order

of injunction in the suit filed subsequently. Once the order of status quo which was

subsisting when the subsequent injunction order was passed, was brought to the

notice of the High Court, the same ought to have been given due regard while

issuing the impugned order. Since the respondent No.1 claims to be in possession

of the suit property, the order of status quo passed in the earlier suit would cover

him in the suit filed by him as well.

Accordingly, we modify the order of injunction passed in the suit

filed by respondent No.1, and direct the parties to maintain status quo with

regard to the

possession of the suit property until further orders that may be passed by the trial

court.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

(MARKANDEY KATJU) NEW DELHI; September 15, 2008.