http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1668 of 2008

PETITIONER: Ravi Prakash Agarwal & Ors

RESPONDENT: Rajesh Prasad Agarwal & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1668                    2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16312 of 2006)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

1.      Leave granted.   

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division  Bench of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal under  Order 41 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in  short ’CPC’)  

3.      Backgrounds facts in a nutshell are as follows:

       The appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit (suit No.445 of  1999) for three reliefs:

(i)     The sale deed executed by defendant-respondent  no.1 on 22.2.1999 in favour of defendant- respondent no.3 be declared as void.   (ii)    a permanent injunction be issued restraining the  defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from  the property in dispute.  (iii)   Another permanent injunction restraining the  defendants no.1, 2 and 4 from letting, selling and  disposing of the property.

4.      An application for injunction was also filed.  On 4.5.1999  ex-parte order of injunction was granted.  The prayer to modify  the same was rejected.  On 24.11.2001 a consent order was  passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.  The Division  Bench directed disposal of the suit within six months and  further directed maintenance of status quo of the suit property  till its disposal on certain conditions. Subsequently,  application was filed by respondent no.4 by making a  grievance that her counsel was not heard.  It is the stand of  the appellants that her defence was struck off. In any event  the order was recalled on 9.1.2002. High Court dismissed the  appeal holding prayer for interim injunction.        

5.      It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that the  order of status quo continued for nine years and by the  impugned order the position has been changed. The  conditions stipulated are really of no consequential relevance,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

as in that case during pendency of the case there may be a  necessity for impleading the vendees.      

6.      Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand,  submitted that the order is really one of concurrence and,  therefore, there was no need to repeat the reasoning.   

7.      We find that the order of status quo continued for  considerable length of time.  It would, therefore, be  appropriate to direct maintenance of status quo as was  originally granted by order dated 24.11.2001.  We make it  clear that by giving this protection it shall not be construed as  if we have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.   We request the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as early as  practicable preferably by the end of 2008.     

8.      The appeal is accordingly disposed with no order as to  costs.