- (1.) This criminal petition arises out of order passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nandyal, dated 16.09.2009, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. directing persons belonging to A party and B party not to enter into the disputed land of Ac.7.75 cents in Sy.No.25-A1 of Chapirevula village until further orders or until disposal of the case by the civil Court.
(2.) The petitioners 1 and 2 are No.s 1 and 2 of B party. The respondents 2 and 3 are No.s 1 and 2 of A party. Both the parties claim title to the disputed land on the basis of registered documents in their favour executed by the respective vendors. The petitioners filed O.S.No.179 of 2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, for declaration of their title and for permanent injunction in respect of the lands against the respondents and others. The respondents also filed O.S.No.119 of 2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, against the petitioners for permanent injunction.
(3.) I.A.No.480 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners herein in O.S.No.179 of 2008 for temporary injunction. The civil Court passed ex parte status quo order in that injunction petition. After contest, final order was passed in I.A.No.480 of 2008 by the civil Court allowing the said petition confirming status quo order. The said order has become final. None of the parties took the matter in appeal to the appellate Court. It is the said status quo order, which added fuel to the situation. A status quo order is neither a positive order nor a negative order. Many times, it becomes no order at all. While granting status quo, a Court is expected to give a definite finding as to which of the two parties was in actual possession and to maintain the said actual possession status quo may be granted. But without giving a definite finding as to possession, granting status quo order will add further confusion to the situation. Many times it leads to scramble for possession, resulting in law and order problem.;