Shumita Didi Sandhu vs Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 5001 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                       Judgment delivered on: 24.08.2012

+      CS(OS) 41/2005

       SHUMITA DIDI SANDHU                                            ..... Plaintiff
                     Through: Mr Salim Inamdar, Adv.

                        versus

    MR. SANJAY SINGH SANDHU & ORS                         ..... Defendants
                  Through: Mr S.S. Jauhar, Adv for Ds-1-3
                  Mr Sanjeev Mahajan, Adv for D-4 to 7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                                 JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

IA No. 12913/2008 (O. 39 R. 2A CPC)

1. This is an application filed under Order 39 Rule 2 A of CPC for taking

action against defendants No. 1 and 3 for committing breach of the interim order

passed by this Court. The grievance of the plaintiff is that while executing two

different sale deeds for sale of different portions of property No. 18-A, Ring Road,

Lajpat Nagar, defendants No. 1 and 3 committed breach of the interim order passed

by this Court on 18.01.2005.

2. The plaintiff before this Court is the wife of defendant No. 1 Shri Sanjay

Singh Sandhu and daughter-in-law of defendants 2 and 3, namely, Shri Hardev

Singh Sandhu and Smt. Shiela Sandhu. She filed the suit for permanent injunction

claiming that property No. 18-A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi was her

matrimonial home since 1994. The following prayers made in the suit:-

"(a) Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1,2 and 3 from committing themselves or through their agents/representatives acts of violence and intimidation against the plaintiff;

(b) Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2 and 3 and their agents/representatives from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff out of her matrimonial home without due process of law."

3. IA No. 291/2005 was filed for an interim injunction claiming the following

reliefs:-

"(a) Pass an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the defendant from committing the acts of adultery and the acts of violence and intimidation against the plaintiff;

(b) Pass an ad interim ex parte injunction directing the defendant not to through the plaintiff out of her matrimonial home and live there peacefully"

4. Vide order dated 18.01.2005, this Court noted the statement of the plaintiff

that she was in possession of the first floor of the suit property and directed status

quo with regard to the suit property to be maintained till the next date of hearing.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the status quo

order prevented the defendants from selling the suit property and that is why they

committed breach of the said order by executing two separate sale deeds with

respect to the suit property. In my view, the contention is wholly misconceived.

The order of status quo passed by the Court has to be read in the context of the

prayer made in the suit and the application for interim injunction.

If read out of the context, an order directing status quo can be interpreted to

mean anything and may result in different interpretations of the same order by

various parties to the suit.

A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in S. Anand

Deep Singh v. Ranjit Kaur and Ors .ILR (1991) Delhi. In that case, in a suit for

partition, rendition of accounts and declaration, the plaintiff had obtained an

interim order directing status quo to be maintained in relation to the properties

mentioned in the two Schedules, annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff filed a Civil

Contempt Petition stating therein that one of the Defendants had carried out

construction activity in one of the properties mentioned in one of the Schedules

and had thereby violated the status quo order passed by the Court. The prayer

made by the plaintiff in the application for grant of interim injunction was

confined to restraining the Defendants from alienating or parting with possession

of the disputed property. Dismissing the Contempt Petition, this Court, inter alia,

held as under:

"There is no doubt that in IA 4224/89 status quo orders were passed regarding properties in Schedules I & II on 26th May, 1989. However, the exact import of the words "status quo' will have to be judged in the light of the prayer made in IA 4224/89. The prayer in this application is that the

Defendants should be restrained from selling, alienating, encumbering or in any manner parting with the possession of the properties. There is no prayer in the entire application that the Respondents/Defendants 1 to 5 should be restrained from proceeding with the construction in GK property. None of the words used in IA4224/89 can be stretched to mean that the plaintiff ever desired by means of this application a restraint order against the Respondents/Defendants 1 to 5 from proceeding with the construction on the Gk property. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Lekhi that under status quo orders, the Respondents/Defendants 1 to 5 should not have proceeded further with the construction of the GK property does not seem to be tenable."

A similar issue arose in Suit No. 1547/1999, Eastman Collaborator v. S.K.

Mehta: 91(2001) DLT 401 where the parties were directed to maintain status

quo in the light of the report of the Local Commissioner who had inspected the

property to identify the occupation of the premises. Another Local Commissioner

was appointed by the Court on an application filed by the Defendant. The Local

Commissioner found that changes have been made in the suit premises and gave

description of those changes in his report. Noticing that the dispute between the

parties was with regard to the possession of the suit property and it was in this

context that the Court had passed an order directing the Local Commissioner to

visit the disputed premises and identify the occupant of those premises, it was

held by this Court that the Court did not intend the suit property to remain as it

was and, therefore, status quo was to be maintained only with respect to the

possession. It was held that the Defendant was not correct in his contention that

no changes could be made in the suit premises.

6. No prayer was made in the suit for restraining the defendants from selling or

transferring the suit property. No such prayer was made in IA No. 291/2005. The

Court, while passing the order dated 18.01.2005, specifically noted the statement of

the plaintiff that she was in possession of the first floor of the suit property. She

was not claiming ownership in the suit property. Therefore, the status quo order

prevented the defendants only from dispossessing the plaintiff from the first floor

of the suit property. They did not commit any breach of the order dated 18.01.2005

by transferring the said property so long as they did not disturb the possession of

the plaintiff. This is not the case of the plaintiff in this application that she has been

dispossessed from the portion which she was occupying in the suit property. The

application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed.

IA Nos. 8442/2005 (O. 6 R. 17 CPC) and 12914/2008 (O. 6 R. 17 r/w O. 1 R. 10 CPC)

The learned counsel for the plaintiff wants a short adjournment to make

further submissions on these applications.

Renotify on 29.08.2012.

V.K.JAIN, J AUGUST 24, 2012 BG