The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CVREV No.317 of 1996 (An application under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908) Mohammad Siddique and another …. Petitioners -versus- Sk. Mansur (dead) and another …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioners - None For Opposite Parties - None
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :23.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment :22.08.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned orders dated 26.04.1994 and 22.08.1996 passed in Misc. Case No.524 of 1992 and in Misc. Appeal No.4 of 1995 respectively. 2. The petitioners in this revision were the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 in Misc. Case No.524 of 1992, appellants in Misc. Appeal No.4 of 1995 arising out of the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I and the defendant Nos.1 & 2 in the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I. The O.Ps in this revision were the petitioner and O.P. No.3 in Misc. Case No.524 of 1992, respondents in Misc. Appeal No.4 of 1995 and plaintiff and defendant No.3 in the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I. CVREV No.317 of 1996 Page 1 of 5 3. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the O.P. No.1 in this revision being the plaintiff filed the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I in the Court of Munsif, Balasore against the petitioners and O.P. No.2 in this revision praying for declaration of his right of passage over the ‘Kha’ schedule suit properties. In that suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I, the plaintiff filed a Misc. Case No.524 of 1992 under O.39 R.1 & 2 of the CPC, 1908 against the defendants praying for restraining them (defendants) from interfering with his right of passage over the ‘Kha’ Schedule suit properties till the final disposal of the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I stating that, “he has been using the ‘Kha’ Schedule suit properties since time of his vendor as passage/road in order to reach main road from his purchased land and as such, he has acquired right of easement over the suit passage. For which, the defendants (O.Ps) are to be restrained from making any pucca boundary wall or fence on the same. To which, the defendants (petitioners in this revision) objected denying the allegations alleged by the plaintiffs against them stating therein that, the plaintiff was/is not using the ‘Kha’ schedule suit land as passage and he (plaintiff) has other way to reach on the main road from his land. After hearing Misc. Case No.524 of 1992 from both the sides, the learned Munsif, Balasore passed its final order on dated 26.04.1994 and CVREV No.317 of 1996 Page 2 of 5 directed both the parties to maintain status quo on the suit land till the final disposal of the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I. 4. On being dissatisfied with the said order dated 26.04.1994 passed in Misc. Case No.524 of 1992, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 challenged the same preferring a Misc. Appeal under O.43 R.1 (r) of the CPC, 1908 vide Misc. Appeal No.4 of 1995 being the appellants against the plaintiff arraying him as respondent No.1 and also arraying defendant No.3 as respondent No.2. 5. After hearing from both the sides, the Appellate Court dismissed that Misc. Appeal No.4 of 1995 of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 (O.P. Nos.1 & 2 in Misc. Case No.524 of 1992) on dated 22.08.1996 and confirmed the order dated 26.04.1994 passed in Misc. Case No.524 of 1992 by the learned Munsif, Balasore. 6. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order dated 22.08.1996 passed in Misc. Appeal No.4 of 1995, the appellants thereof filed this revision being the petitioners against the plaintiff arraying him as O.P. No.1 and also arraying defendant No.3 as O.P. No.2. 7. As none appeared from either side after admission of this revision for hearing, then as per the ratio of the decision between Hukumchand Amolikchand Lodge Vrs. Madhava Balaji Potdar and another reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 600, this revision was taken up for its final disposal CVREV No.317 of 1996 Page 3 of 5 on merit on perusal of the materials available in the record. Because, as per law, once a revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 is admitted,
Decision
the same must be disposed of on merit, but the same cannot be dismissed for default of the parties. 8. On perusal of the impugned orders passed in Misc. Case No.524 of 1992 and Misc. Appeal No.04 of 1995, it appears that, both the Courts have directed the parties through their respective orders to maintain status quo of the suit land till the final disposal of the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992 assigning the reasons that, “the order of status quo, which was passed at the initial stage of the suit, has been obeying by the parties and if the said order of status quo is made to continue till final disposal of the suit, the same will cause no prejudice to either parties.” 9. It is very fundamental in law that, it is the duty of every Court in India to keep the suit properties as it is in status quo during the pendency of the suit without allowing any of the parties to change the nature and character of the same or to create any third party interest on the same through alienation. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vrs. Baldev Das reported in IV (2004) Civ.L.T. 172 (SC) that, unless and until, a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the Court should not permit CVREV No.317 of 1996 Page 4 of 5 the nature of the property being changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the property. (Para 10) (ii) In a case between Bheem Singh Vrs. Pratap Singh reported in IV (2005) Civ.L.T. 188 (Rajasthan), since the interim order, which was passed, has been in operation for a considerable period, for which, the said position should not be altered/changed till final disposal of the suit. 10. Here in this matter at hand, when the parties to the suit have been abiding the impugned orders of status quo over the case land since years together without violating the same in any manner and when it is the duty of every Court in India to keep the suit properties as it is in status quo during the pendency of the suit, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, there is no justification under law for making any interference with the impugned orders of status quo passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court through this revision filed by the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 & 2 in the suit vide T.S. No.994 of 1992-I). 11. Therefore, there is no merit in this revision filed by the petitioners. The same must fail. 12. In result, the revision filed by the petitioners is dismissed on merit. 13. As such, this revision is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 22.08.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer CVREV No.317 of 1996 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2025 15:26:17 (A.C. Behera), Judge. Page 5 of 5