Status Quo Order U/S 151 CPC Not Sustainable When There Is Express Provision Provided Under The Code: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that an order of status quo passed by a court in exercise of its power under Section 151 CPC is not sustainable since there is an express provision provided for the same under the Code of Civil Procedure.The bench comprising of Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari observed-Admittedly, the learned Court below has erred in appointing the Commissioner, inasmuch...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that an order of status quo passed by a court in exercise of its power under Section 151 CPC is not sustainable since there is an express provision provided for the same under the Code of Civil Procedure.
The bench comprising of Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari observed-
Admittedly, the learned Court below has erred in appointing the Commissioner, inasmuch as collection of evidence cannot be permitted while deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code. The application has to be decided prima facie on the three sound principles of law. Even, status quo order could not have been granted by the Appellate Court exercising the powers under Section 151 of the Code when there is express provision provided under the Code.
The facts of the case were that the Respondent had filed a suit before the civil court for declaration of title and permanent injunction along with the application under Order XXXIX R1 and R2 CPC against the Petitioner. His application for temporary injunction was rejected against which he filed an appeal under Order XLIII R1 CPC, before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court reversed the order passed the civil court whereby the application of the Respondent for temporary injunction was rejected. Aggrieved, the Petitioner moved the Court challenging the said order of reversal.
The Petitioner submitted before the Court that the lower appellate court had travelled beyond the scope of Order XXXIX R1 and R2 CPC by directing appointment of Commissioner for demarcation of the suit land, which was never prayed by the Respondent/Plaintiff. It was further asserted that the lower appellate court had also granted status quo in the matter under Section 151 CPC, which could not have been exercised in view of the fact that there is an express provision under Order XXXIX R1 and R2 CPC.
Placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court as well as that of the Court, the Petitioner contended that the inherent jurisdiction of a court to make orders ex debito justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed under Section 151 CPC, but that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code.
Per contra, the Respondent submitted that the impugned order was passed in accordance with the law and therefore, no interference was called for. He further argued that no application was required for appointing the Commissioner and that the court can, on its own, appoint the Commissioner, as was done in the present case. Thus, the Respondent, concluded that the petition deserved to be dismissed.
Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court elucidated the scope of Order XXXIX R1 and R2 CPC-
…while exercising discretion for grant of interim injunction the following three principles are applied:-
(i) Whether plaintiff has a prima facie case;
(ii) Whether balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff;
(iii) Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if temporary injunction is declined.
The Court noted that the lower appellate court had erred in appointing a commissioner while deciding the application of the Respondent for temporary injunction. The Court further opined that the application under Order XXXIX R1 and R2 CPC ought to be decided prima facie on the three sound principles of law. The Court also held that the status quo order could not have been granted by the appellate court exercising the powers under Section 151 CPC when there is express provision provided under the Code.
With the aforesaid observations, the Court directed the lower appellate court to decide the application of the Respondent under Order XXXIX R1 and R2 CPC without evaluating the evidence/report of Commissioner, in accordance with law and further to take a decision as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the Petition was allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Case Title : Omprakash Agrawal & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar Agrawal & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 203