R.B.Mehrotra - (1.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the orders, dated 21-5-1991 passed by the Munsif City, Jaunpur and the order, dated 20-7-1991 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jaunpur.
(2.) BY orders, dated 21-5-1990, the Munsif, Jaunpur had allowed an application of the plaintiff respondent for construction of his cottage (Marhaha) which was alleged to have been demolished after passing of the status quo order in the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent. The 1st Additional District Judge rejected the revision of the petitioners filed against the order dated 21-5-1990 of the Munsif, by his order, dated 20-7-1991. 230 Rajendra Pratap v. A. D. J. (R. B. Mchrotra, J.) [ 1991 At the stage of admission itself, the writ petition was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent Sri Indra Raj Singh, as such the case is being disposed of after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri B. B. Paul and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri Indra Raj Singh. Sri Paul learned counsel for the petitioners has raised three contentions in the present writ petition. 1. The order of the status quo is not an order of injunction as such cannot be treated as an order under the provisions of order 39 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The order of status quo is not an executable order. 3. The courts below erred in law in passing the impugned order on the basis of the Commissioner's report alone. The said Commissioner's report was not admissible in evidence as the objections against the said Commissioner's report were pending consideration before the court itself.
(3.) SRI Paul has relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions : (a) Harbhajan Singh v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi Sharma, AIR 1976 Delhi 175. (b) Haji Kutubuddin v. Allah Banda, AIR 1973 Alld. (c) Satyanarayana v. T. Jalaiah, AIR 1972 AP 265. All the above three decisions have been relied upon for the proposition that the Commissioner's report cannot be treated as substantive evidence unless objection against the said report has been disposed of. Sri Paul has relied upon the. case of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1987 SCC supp. 394. This decision has been relied for the proposition that the order of status quo cannot be treated as an order of injunction.;