Seen. Heard. Perused the petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 with section 151 of the 1908 Code of Civil procedure, and the supporting affidavit, written objection thereto, submitted documents, and the record. On such perusal, it appears to the court that this is a suit for Partition, and the plaintiffs have obtained an order of ad-interim injunction against the defendant's side. Today, the defendant-side also places another petition for vacating the ad-interim order dated 14/12/2021. The record is taken up for passing the necessary order.
The so-called trinity of principles on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction is the cornerstone of a party’s pleadings. But, on careful perusal of the pleadings’ averment and respective petitions along with submitted documents and photographs, it conspicuously appears to the court that the share(s) of the parties to the suits to the lands scheduled to the plaint is admitted. So, it becomes clear in both pleadings that the plaintiff shows some material facts which obviously carry him to the trial with his suit. In the consideration that a finding on a 'prima face' case would be a finding of fact, a substantial question has already been raised bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Therefore, since the plaintiff side demonstrates a ‘good and arguable case’ in his favor by raising a fair question for determination; it is needless to put that a prima facie case is vividly established.
As this is a suit for partition, it would be trite to say that, as per the record, both sides are in joint possession of the whole land scheduled to the plaint. However, the plaintiff’s chief claims reveal that the defendants are trying to obstruct the way to the main road from his home. On contrary, the defendants pleaded that there are some other ways for the plaintiffs to go towards the so-called main road. Instead, a boundary or fence, or hedge is necessary for their (defendants) privacy protection. Since a police report has already been submitted to the court envisaging that the so-called tin-made fence is already removed as per the court's order, it seems resounding that the defendants have some valid reasons on their behalf. As such, the purpose of the impugned ad interim order is already served so far. However, the comparative mischief between such privacy protection and rights to movement has come into play in our case.
It thus appears that, without having further materials relating to the real-time position of those lands, houses, and, structures, as well as the fact of the existence and necessity of way to the so-called main road and the privacy protection, it is not opportune to decide whether the matters in question. Since both sides also lead some documents and a sense of standing, the court is of opinion that a commissioner is appointed to carry out a local inspection in order for reaching a correct decision in this context, further hearing seems to be opportune for the next date in this behalf, and a local inspection becomes necessary in this regard.
However, meanwhile, if they (parties) are not stopped from attempting to frustrate the purpose of this petition, financial hardship might be caused to any party. Since the possession of the suit property is sufficiently ascertained so far, the materials on record cogently suggest a status quo position, it thus seems to be expedient to maintain status quo in the present context. Therefore, considering all of the aforesaid appearing facts and weighing the competing possibilities of the likelihood of comparative injury, it is the court’s view that taking into consideration of the aforesaid appearing facts and weighing the competing possibilities of the likelihood of comparative injury, the balance of convenience appears to be in the preservation of status quo. As such, the court is of the view that the subject matter should be maintained in the status quo. Meanwhile, a local investigation should be completed to determine the real positions of the suit lands and its surroundings.
Hence, it is ordered that the defendants’ petition dated
14.06.2022 is allowed and the ad-interim order dated 14/12/2021 is
hereby vacated. However, the parties to the suit are hereby ordered to maintain status quo till further order, as
appeared to date in respect of the suit landed property scheduled to the petition
for temporary injunction dated 13.12.2021.
Inform the Ld. Advocate(s) for the
parties to the suit of this order.
On perusal of the record, it transpires that although defendants have submitted written objections, they are yet to submit any written statement. The next date is 18.07.2022 AD for submitting W.S, as well as taking steps by the petitioners for local inspection on the petition for temporary injunction dated 13.12.2021.