When legal representatives of deceased defendant can be held guilty for violation of injunction order?

The learned Senior Counsel would submit that after bringing the legal representatives on record, it incumbent on the part of the respondents again to obtain a fresh order of status quo against the legal representatives so as to bind them and till no such order was obtained against the appellants, the appellants cannot be found fault with. Thus, the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law.

33. But, this contention cannot be accepted for the reason that though status quo order was granted against the father, yet the sons cannot be allowed to flout the status quo order which was granted against their father after they were brought on record as legal representatives. It is not the case of the appellants that they have parted with the property by executing sale deed prior to their bringing on record as legal representatives, but it is only after they were brought on record, they have parted with the property. Thus, it is clearly established that the appellants having full knowledge of the status quo order which was passed against their father, executed the sale deeds on the premise that the status quo orders would not in any way bind them. But, this contention has no legs to stand inasmuch as the status-quo order passed against Sharfuddin is required to be respected by the legal representatives who succeeded to the property in question. It is not a case of third party alleging that he is not bound by the injunction order passed against the defendants. But the appellants are none else than the legal representatives and they have the full knowledge of the status quo order passed against their father. Therefore, a person knowing fully well that an injunction order was passed against the defendant and still violates the injunction order irrespective of the fact whether he is a party to the injunction or not and commits violation of the order, is required to face the consequences under Rule 2-A of Order 39. Thus, we are not in a position to agree with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the appellants have not committed any contempt of the orders of the lower Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

LPA No. 94 of 1998

Decided On: 19.02.2003

 Mohd. Sharfuddin (died) by LRs.
Vs.
Mohd. Jamal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G. Bikshapathy and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.

Citation: 2003(3) Civil court cases695 AP

Print Page

Whether construction made in breach of status quo order can be protected from demolition?

 What is most distressing to note is that on the basis of the said status-quo order, which was binding on the appellant also, the appellant has gone ahead, demolished the existing structure and carried out and completed further construction of four floors. The photographs produced on record by respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation are self-speaking to reveal what was the condition of the suit structure in the year 2014, when  the status-quo order was obtained. It was completely demolished, whereas, now, in the year 2016, when the Officers of respondent No.1-

Municipal Corporation visited the suit premises, they found construction of four floors to be complete. Admittedly, there is not a single document under which the appellant has obtained the permission for construction of four floors. The building already existing was also only of 'ground + 1 floor'. In such situation, it is apparent that whatever construction, which is carried out by the appellant, upto four floors is in breach of the rules and regulations of respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation. It is starkly unauthorized, blatantly illegal and prima facie also in violation of the status-quo order passed by the Trial Court.

24. Needless to state that such illegal and unauthorized construction cannot be protected in any way. Moreover, as pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation, the construction carried out is such that it is without plinth and also without usual slabs, but it is only on iron columns. Such construction is hazardous, to say the least, and dangerous to the lives of the occupants and also to the lives of the persons passing nearby or residing adjacent. At-least under the order of the Court, such construction can in no way be protected. Admittedly, this structure is also not occupied and is not in a position to be occupied, as is evident from the photographs dated 19th September 2016 produced  on record by respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation. Therefore, it goes without saying that, when the construction is apparently illegal, carried out in violation of the status-quo order passed by the Court, it is not qualified for protection from this Court.

25. As regards the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the Notice of Motion and Contempt Petition preferred by respondent No.1-

Municipal Corporation, for breach of the status-quo order, are rejected by the Trial Court, the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court reveal that they were rejected it being the prima facie stage and the evidence will be necessary to prove that there was breach of such order, especially, because the contempt proceedings in the nature of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC are having penal consequences, where it is required to be proved strictly so as to take the necessary penal action or criminal action against the contemnor. However, for the purpose of deciding this Appeal from Order in Notice of Motion, prima facie view has to be taken and this prima facie view is unequivocal that the appellant has carried out construction in violation of the order of status-quo and also against the 'Rules and Regulations of the Development', as prescribed in law. Such construction cannot be protected and hence the impugned order passed by the Trial Court of dismissing the Notice of Motion needs to be upheld and, accordingly, this Appeal from Order stands dismissed with costs.

Bombay High Court

M/S. United Construction vs Municipal Corporation For ... on 22 September, 2016

Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi

  Citation:2016(6) ALLMR 610,2017(2) MHLJ270

Print Page

Supreme Court: Any act done in violation of order of status quo is illegal

In Wharton's Law Lexicon, 14th Edn. at p. 95 1, status quo has been edefined as meaning:

"The existing state of things at any given date; e.g., Status quo ante bellum, the state of things before the war."

20. According to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn. the relevant passage occurs:

"The existing state of things at any given date. Status quo ante bellum, the state of things before the war. 'Status quo' to be preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy."

21.This Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar' stated thus: (SCC p.398, para 5) "According to the ordinary legal connotation, the term status quo' implies the existing state of things at any given point of time."

22.When the removal of padlock was complained of in the appeal filed by the appellants herein, strangely delivery of possession was ordered! The said order clearly betrays lack of understanding as to the scope of contempt jurisdiction and proceeds upon a total misappreciation of the facts. We are obliged to remark that both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench had not kept themselves within the precincts of contempt jurisdiction. Instead peculiar orders have come to be passed totally alien to the issue and disregardful of the facts. The orders of the learned Single Judge and that of the Division Bench cannot stand even a moment's scrutiny. Therefore, it is idle to contend that no interference is warranted under Article 136.

23.Apart from the fact whether A.K. Ghosh had a legal authority to sublease or not it was not open to him to grant a sublease in violation of the order. It is no use contending as Mr Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondents does, that there was a bar to such a sublease under the terms of the status quo order. It has the effect of violating the preservation of status of the property. This will all the more be so when this is done without the leave of the court to disturb the state of things as they then stood. It would amount to violation of the order. The principle contained in the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' has no application at all to the facts of this case when in violation of status quo order a sub-tenancy has been created. Equally, the contention that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without recourse to law is without merit, because the state of affairs in relation to property as on September 15, 1988 is what the court is concerned with. Such an order cannot be circumvented by parties with impunity and expect the court to confer its blessings. It does not matter that to the contempt proceedings Somani Builders was not a party. It cannot gain an advantage in derogation of the rights of the parties, who were litigating originally. If the right of subtenancy is recognised, how is status quo as of September 15, 1988 maintained? Hence, the grant of sublease is contrary to the order of status quo. Any act done in the teeth of the order of status quo is clearly illegal. All actions including the grant of sublease are clearly illegal.

Supreme Court of India

Styabrata Biswas vs Kalyan Kumar Kisku on 27 January, 1994

Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 1837, 1994 SCR (1) 413

BENCH:
MOHAN, S. (J)
ANAND, A.S. (J)

Print Page

When court will not grant injunction in favour of plaintiff?

A perusal of record further indicates that after obtaining
ad-interim order of status-quo from this Court, the appellant has
extended the temporary structure in the suit premises. A perusal of
the photographs produced on record by the Municipal Corporation as
well as by the intervenor clearly indicates such further extension
carried out by the appellant. In my view, the reliefs under the
provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are
equitable reliefs and are discretionary and such discretion can be
exercised by the Court only when the person has come to the Court
with clean hands and has not suppressed and/or material facts and
makes out a prima-facie case. In my view if a person violates the
order of status-quo granted by this Court, cannot be granted anyrelief by exercising discretionary power by Court. A perusal of the
order passed by the learned trial Judge clearly indicates that the
appellant was given an opportunity to produce all the documents. The
learned trial Judge considered each and every document produced
by the appellant before him and has rightly rejected the ad-interim
relief. Though this Court has granted sufficient opportunity to the
appellant to convince this Court that the suit structure was a pacca
structure and that the appellant was carrying on business in the suit
premises since 1961-1962. In my view, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant could not demonstrate any of these

crucial facts to seek any interim relief from this Court.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.75 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.89 OF 2015
Mohd. Ismail Gulam Shaikh 
V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Anr.
 CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.
 DATE : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2016.
Citation;2016(3) MHLJ247

Print Page

Guidelines for grant of police aid for implementation of court orders

The lower Courts are frequently confronted with the question of issuing police protection. Since the issuance of police aid is often raised in one way or other, by the lower Courts it is appropriate to issue the following guide lines:

*** In appropriate cases, Civil Court has the power to issue suitable directions to police officials as servants of law to extend their aid and assistance in the execution of decrees and orders of Civil Courts or in implementing an order of injunction passed by it. (1992 TLNJ 120).

*** Ordering police protection has got serious consequences, impinging on the rights of the parties.

*** Police aid is not to be granted simultaneously with an order of injunction.

*** In cases where the lower Courts order police protection/police aid in the execution of decrees and orders of the civil Courts or in implementing an order of injunction passed by it, the Court is to record reasons as to how and why the case is the appropriate case to order police aid and for what purpose the police aid is ordered.

*** Police protection/police aid may not be ordered by a non-speaking order. Order of Court for police aid might give room for the parties to take law into their own hands. The party having the order of Court for police aid, might try to disturb the status quo - either by trying to take possession or trying to dispossess the opponent.

*** Order of the Court for police protection is to specifically indicate in precise terms the purpose for which police protection is ordered.

Madras High Court

Abdul Sukhure Bhai vs Durai Kuppuswamy on 23 June, 2005

Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 Mad 186, 2006 (2) CTC 211
Bench: R Banumathi

Print Page