Chandan Kumar v. Smt. Shanti Mishra And ORS
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1561 of 2016 (2) dt.23-12-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1561 of 2016 ====================================================== Chandan Kumar .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Smt. Shanti Mishra & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bajarangi Lal For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 23-12-2016 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Bajrangi lal for the petitioner.
Perused the impugned order dated 31.08.2016 passed by Sub Judge III, Samastipur in Title Suit No.216 of 2006 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. praying for removal of the illegal construction which was constructed after passing of the status quo order.
It may be mentioned here that by order dated 29.03.2002, Annexure 1, the Civil Judge(Sr. Div.) directed both the parties to maintain status quo. There is no specific direction restraining the respondent from making any construction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Anr. v. Praveen Kumar Singh, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1474 has held that simply directing the parties to
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1561 of 2016 (2) dt.23-12-2016 maintain status quo without indicating what the status quo was, is not an order that should be passed at the initial stage of a litigation." In the present case, as stated above, the trial court has only passed a status quo order.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is illegal construction which has been made after the passing of status quo order.
From perusal of the order directing the parties to maintain status quo, there is no status of the land was mentioned whether there was any construction or not and if there was any construction upto what extent. Moreover, the petitioner has filed separate miscellaneous case for disobedience of the order passed by the court below.
Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction and accordingly, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/- U T