The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Aravind Kumar, J.:— This appeal is by defendant No. 11 of O.S No. 4743/2012 directed against the order of status-quo passed by trial Court on 21.10.2013

2. Though appeal is listed for orders by the consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal. Plaintiff filed a suit O.S 4743/2012 for declaration of his title to the suit schedule property amongst other declarations sought for and for perpetual injunction. An application for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating or encumbering the schedule property was also filed. Written statement and also objections to the application for temporary injunction came to be filed by the 11th defendant.

An application under Order VII, Rule 11(b) & (d) of CPC came to be filed by 11th defendant. Trial Court by order dated 21.10.2013 passed an order to the following effect:

“Advocate for plaintiff present.

Advocate for D-3 present.

Advocate for D-7 to 11 present.

Adv for D-7 to 11 submit that construction is already completed before filing the suit.

Both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo in respect of suit schedule property till next date.”

Being aggrieved by this order, present appeal has been filed by 11th defendant.

3. Time and again this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when an order of status-quo is granted by a Court said order of status quo should be explained in unequivocal terms as to “what that status-quo would mean” as otherwise such orders when passed without any qualification or condition it would lead to ambiguity, erroneous interpretation by the parties to the lis and thereby resulting in multiplicity of proceedings.

4. The expression ‘status quo’ is undoubtedly a term of ambiguity and at times gives rise to doubt and difficulty. According to the ordinary legal connotation, the term ‘status quo’ implies the existing state of things at any given point of time. In Wharton's Law Lexicon 14th Edition at page 951 Status Quo has been defined as meaning:

“The existing state of things at any given date; e.g, Status quo ante bellum, the state of things before the war.”

5. According to Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition the relevant passage occurs:

“The existing state of things at any given date. Status quo ante bellum the state of things before the law. “Status quo” to be preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.”

6. If in a given case, the Court intends to give interim relief, it has to make endeavour to give specific injunctive relief or interim relief as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the said case. However, if the Courts were to opine or find it appropriate to grant an order of “status quo”, then it has to indicate the nature of such status quo as otherwise it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. It is always desirable to indicate the nature of status quo and granting of such orders without qualifying the same should be avoided. The following judgments would clearly support said proposition:

1. AIR 1989 MADRAS 73 : D. Albert v. Lalitha

“7. I am aware that many a Court including the High Court have passed orders of ‘status-quo’ simpliciter. In fact, some time back, I came across an order of the High Court on the following lines: Petitioner claims to be in possession. Respondent filed a counter that he is in possession. In the circumstances, status quo should continue till the disposal of the appeal. It is obvious that such orders should not be passed by any Court, high or low. Whenever a Court passes an order directing the preservation of ‘status quo’ it should be the same order state in unequivocal terms what the ‘status quo’ is. Otherwise the Court will be failing to do its duty.”

2. N. Ramaiah v. Nagaraj S., 2001 (4) KCCR 2657 : ILR 2001 KAR 3466

“22. An order of status quo is a specie of interim orders, when granted indiscriminately and without qualifications or conditions, leads to ambiguity, difficulties, and injustice. If Courts want to give interim relief, they should endeavour to give specific injunctive relief. If grant of order of ‘status quo’ is found to be the only appropriate relief, then Courts should indicate the nature of status quo, that is whether the status quo is in regard to possession, title, nature of property or some other aspect. Merely saying ‘status quo’ or ‘status quo to be maintained’ should be avoided. If in a Suit for injunction, where plaintiff claims that he is in possession of the suit property and the defendant is attempting to interfere with his possession, and the defendant contends that he is in possession and petitioner was never in possession, if the Court merely directs status quo to be maintained by parties, without saying any thing more, it will cause confusion and in many cases even lead to breach of peace. On the basis of such order, the plaintiff would contend that he is in possession and he is entitled to continue in possession; and the defendant would contend that he is in possession and he is entitled to continue in possession. In such a case, if the Court wants to direct status quo it should specify the context in which or conditions subject to which, such status quo direction is issued.”

3. AIR 2006 SC 1474 : (2006) 3 SCC 312, Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh

“5. It is necessary to notice at this stage that in an original suit of this nature, it was not appropriate for the Additional District Judge to pass an order directing the parties to maintain status quo, without indicating what the status quo was. If he was satisfied that the appellant before him had made out a prima facie case for an ad interim ex parte injunction and the balance of convenience justified the grant of such an injunction, it was for him to have passed such an order of injunction. But simply directing the parties to 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, especially when one Court had found no reason to grant an ex parte order of injunction and the appellate Court was dealing with only the limited question whether an ad interim order of injunction should or should not have been granted by the trial Court, since the appeal was only against the refusal of an ad interim ex parte order of injunction and the main application for injunction pending suit, was still pending before the trial Court itself. Therefore, we are prima facie of the view that the Additional District Judge ought not to have passed an equivocal order like the one passed in the circumstances of the case. But of course, that aspect has relevance only to the extent that before ordering an interim mandatory injunction or refusing it, the Court has first to consider whether the plaintiff has proved that he was in possession on the date of suit and on the date of the order and he had been dispossessed the next day. Unless a clear prima facie finding that the plaintiff was in possession on those dates is entered, an order for interim mandatory injunction could not have been passed and any such order passed would be one without jurisdiction.”

7. Keeping the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, Madras High Court and Division Bench of this Court when the facts on hand are examined, it would indicate that plaintiff herein has filed a suit for declaration to declare the General Power of Attorney dated 17.02.2000 as void document and not binding on him; to declare sale deed dated 09.02.2005 executed by defendant No. 1 being General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 3 as illegal; and, so also the sale deed dated 18.10.2005 executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No. 7; and, sale deed dated 27.07.2010 executed in favour of defendant Nos. 7 to 10. One another prayer sought for by plaintiffs is for possession of suit schedule property from defendant No. 11 namely to deliver back lawful possession to plaintiff and for perpetual injunction.

8. This would clearly indicate that undisputedly plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property as on date of suit.

9. Along with plaint an interlocutory application has been filed seeking for temporary injunction to restrain defendants from alienating or encumbering suit schedule property. Trial Court has issued emergent notice on the said application and on appearance, written statement came to be filed and objections to application for temporary injunction was also filed and it is at the stage of adjudication. During the pendency of said suit one more application came to be filed on 14.08.2013 by plaintiff seeking an order of restraint against defendant from changing or altering the nature of property, which was objected to by defendants 7 to 11 by filing a detailed statement of objections and raising a plea with regard to maintainability of the suit itself. In fact an application under Order 7, Rule 11(b) and (d) of CPC has also been filed by defendant No. 3. Trial Court without disposing off these applications on merits has proceeded to pass an order directing parties to maintain status-quo. Objections filed by defendants 7 to 11 would indicate that they have commenced construction of building in the suit schedule property and they have also contended as to how plaintiff does not have a prima facie case or balance of convenience not being in favour of plaintiff. It is also contended that irreparable injury which would be caused to them would be much more than what plaintiff may suffer and it has been explained in detail in their objection statement. Without considering these aspects and also without examining as to whether application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(b) and (d) of CPC merits acceptance, trial Court has proceeded to pass an order of status-quo. An order of status-quo when being passed without specifying or qualifying as to what is the nature of such status-quo, it cannot be sustained. Hence, order under appeal cannot be sustained even for a moment. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the parties are directed to appear before Trial Court and seek disposal of LA. No. 1/12 filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, I.A Nos. 9/2013 and LA. 5/2012, expeditiously at any rate within 30 days from the date of learned Advocates furnishing the copy of this order before Trial Court. Hence, order passed by the Trial Court is hereby set aside and no opinion is expressed on merits and contentions of both parties are left open.

10. Parties are directed to bear costs of these proceedings.