SOUMEN SEN,J - (1.) THE revisional application preferred by the opposite parties against an order of rejection of an application filed under Section 115 A of the Code of Civil Procedure which was thoroughly misconceived and not maintainable. In such misconceived application, the additional District Judge passed an order directing removal of bricks with a further direction upon the local police station to keep watch about the matter so that during the pendency of the suit, no further construction is made by the defendant/respondent or his agent or men. The said application arose out of an order passed by the learned civil Judge, Junior Division in rejecting the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the order of status quo was passed on 11th July, 2001 and in considering the said application, it cannot be said that the state of affair as was existing in 11th July, 2001 has been altered by the petitioner.
(2.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2006 SC 1474 (Kishore Kr. Khaitan �vs- Praveen Kumar) reiterated that it is the obligation of the court to specify the exact nature of the suit property while passing the order of status quo so that in future when an allegation is made with regard to its violation, the court could come to a definite conclusion as to truth or falsity of such claim. It was held in Para-4, which reads as follows: "4. 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 indicting 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." In Garden Cottage Foods Ltd. v. Milk Marketing Board (1984) AC 130, held: " The status quo is the state of affairs existing during the period immediately preceding the issue of the writ, and in respect of a motion for an interlocutory injunction, the period immediately preceding the motion. Lord Diplock particularly pointed out that 'the duration of that period since the state of affairs last changed must be more than minimal, having regard to the total length of the relationship between the parties in respect of which the injunction is granted; otherwise the state of affairs before the last change would be the relevant status quo. As Megaw J. Pointed out, the term 'status quo, or more fully, status quo ante', "means simply 'the existing state of things' � existing before a particular point of time. For that to be of any help, it is necessary to answer the question- existing when? Before what point of time? For the answer may be different, according as you look at the existing state of things at the date when the defendant did the act, or the first act, which is alleged to have been wrongful; or the date when the plaintiff first learned of that act; or the date when the plaintiff first complained to the defendant; or the date when he issued his writ. I think the relevant point of time for purposes of the 'status quo' may well vary in different cases." (Dunhill (Alfred) Ltd. V. Sunoptics [1979]FSR 337) The interim injunction to maintain status quo is a discretionary pre-emptive remedy as outlined in American Cyanamid C. Ltd. V. Ethicon Ltd. (1975) AC 396" It is incumbent upon the Court directing status quo to indicate position as to the nature, state of affair and condition existing on the date of passing of the order, otherwise it is impossible, on an application being made subsequently claiming violation of the order of status quo, to ascertain what was the original position. Be that as it may this Court in admitting the revisional application passed an order of status quo in respect of the disputed property till the disposal of the revisional application.
(3.) THE opposite party submits on the basis of the report of pleader-commissioner that on an inspection made on 25th February, 2001, the pleader-commissioner found that there is an existence of an latrine in the disputed property that is R.S. no. 4645 and whether such latrine was really being used by the opposite party or not on the date when the order of status quo was passed cannot be ascertained from record. However, it is open for the opposite party to approach the Court on the basis of such report and any other material claiming a right to use the said latrine till the disposal of the suit. However, this is for the trial Court to decide. This Court is only considering the propriety of an order passed by the additional District Judge in entertaining an application out of an order of rejection of an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no independent challenge to the order dated 20th July, 2002. In view thereof, the order of the additional District Judge, Purulia is set aside.The revisional application succeeds.;