Honourable BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petitions, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 23rd July, 2010, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) N0.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur set aside the order dated 25th June, 2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) (East), Jaipur City, Jaipur and remitted the case to the said Court for adjudicating the application of temporary injunction afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. It has also been implored to restore the order dated 25th June, 2010.
(2.) HAVING considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order dated 23rd July, 2010, it is noticed that on 25th June, 2010, learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) (East), Jaipur City, Jaipur passed the follbwing order: JUDGEMENT_1122_RAJLW2_2011Image1.jpg Aggrieved with this order, appellant Vinod Kumar preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) N0.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur in its appellate jurisdiction and remitted the case back to the trial Court for adjudicating the same afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the order dated 25th June, 2010 is an interlocutory order and not a final order, hence the appeal was not maintainable against the same. He cited the judgment of Midche Linge Gowda and others vs. Channamma and another reported in AIR 1974 Kamatak 63 in support thereof. E converso, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper. He contended that no order on injunction application could be passed without giving the reasons in support thereof. Learned Additional Civil Judge directed both the parties to maintain the status quo with regard to the disputed property in question, but no reason was assigned as to why the status quo order was passed. In view thereof, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar, it is pertinent to note that on 25th June, 2010, learned Additional Civil Judge, after hearing both the parties, directed them to maintain the status-quo of the disputed place till next date of hearing. The application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was still pending. It was not finally adjudicated. That application was to be decided after taking the counter reply on record and the case was adjourned to 5th July, 2010. From the order dated 25th June, 2010, it is manifest that the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) did not express any opinion in regard to the merits of the case and it seems that the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) simply as a sort of observation and may be as a warning to the parties not to create any further dispute between themselves, recorded in the order-sheet of that day that both the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the disputed place till the next date of hearing. It further manifests that had the learned Additional Civil Judge decided the temporary injunction application on merits, he would not have recorded this fact that sans expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the parties were directed to maintain the status quo which suggests that the application was not decided on merits.
(3.) IN the case of Midche Linge Gowda and others vs. Channamma and another (supra), Karnataka High Court held thus : "Even after hearing both the sides application adjourned for hearing on merits with a direction to both the parties to maintain status-quo, such an order cannot be treated as one under Order 39 Rule 1. Hence, appeal not maintainable." Undeniable and un-disputably, the order dated 25.6.2010 is found to be an interlocutory order, an order in the form of warning, issued prior to the adjudication of temporary injunction application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and thus, no appeal was maintainable against the same. In view of above, the impugned order dated 23rd July, 2010 rendered by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur cannot be said to be just and proper and the same deserves to be set aside. ;