Delhi High Court
Satish Chandra vs Krishan Kumar & Ors on 31 May, 2022
$~ 144(Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1/2019 & CM No. 11/2019
SATISH CHANDRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nalin Tripathi and
Mr.Divyanshu Priyam, Adv.
versus
KRISHAN KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja and
Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advs. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 31.05.2022
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
assails order dated 24th December, 2018 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") on an application under
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the
respondent, as the plaintiff in CS 639/06 (subsequently renumbered as
CS 618788/16).
2. Satish Chandra, the petitioner in the present petition, was
Defendant 2 in CS 639/06, and the respondent Krishan Kumar was the
plaintiff. CS 639/06 was instituted by the respondent against the
petitioner and six other defendants seeking partition, rendition of
accounts and mandatory injunction in respect of four properties. The
suit was accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1
and 2 of the CPC, seeking interlocutory injunction. The prayer clause
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
in the plaint reads thus:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that:
(a) a preliminary decree for partition by determining the
share in the immovable properties i.e. the entire portion on
western side including the terrace over it and the roof on the
back side of the western portion shown in RED colour of
property no. 3857, CHARKHEWALAN, DELHI and property
no. B-14, SURYA NAGAR, GHAZIABAD, U.P. and
movable properties as mentioned in Schedule-B and to
determine the share of the plaintiff and other defendants in the
said properties, which are liable to be partitioned.
It is further prayed that a preliminary decree of
partition of HUF premises bearing no. 1881, HAVELI
JUGAL KISHORE, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI-110006 of
M/S RAMCHAND LAKHPAT RAI, HUE, wherein the HUF
business of Krishna Guest House is being run be passed by
meets and bounds in favour of plaintiff and against the
defendants no. 1 to 3 thereby determining whatever right,
interest and share the said parties have/derived in the said
property.
(b) pass a final decree of partition of the movable and
immovable suit properties by meets and bound amongst the
co-sharers and to separate the share of the plaintiff therein.
(c) to pass a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the
defendants no. to 3, their agents, servants and employees and
representatives from interfering in the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff in his shop on the ground floor of
property no. 3857, CHARKHEWALAN, DELHI, shown in
BLUE colour and the terrace on the Eastern Portion of the
said property shown BLUE colour and also from interfering in
the possession and the business of the plaintiff being run in
SHOP NO. 1881-A, HAVELI JUGAL KISHORE,
CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI and from selling, disposing off
or creating any third party interest in any of the undivided Suit
properties movable and immovable, which are jointly owned
by the plaintiff and the defendants no. 1 to 3 and from
interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff in property
no. B-14, SURYA NAGAR and 3857, CHARKHEWALAN,
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
DELHI.
(d) pass a decree for rendition of accounts against the
defendant no. 1 directing him to full and detailed accounts of
the income of the HUF business of Krishna Guest House
being run at 1881, HAVELIJUGAL KISHORE, CHANDNI
CHOWK, DELHI.
(e) the costs of the suit may kindly be decree in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendants."
3. On 26th July, 2006, a Coordinate Single Bench of this Court
directed the parties in the suit to "maintain status quo in respect of
Shop No. 1881, Haveli Jugal Kishore, Chandni Chowk, Delhi."
(hereinafter referred to as "1881").
4. IA 4271/2006 and 10111/2007, filed by Respondent 1 under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, came to be disposed of, by
the following order, passed by this Court, on 18th February, 2008:
"All these applications have been taken up for hearing
together because the counsel for both the parties have agreed
for passing of a consent order on the said applications.
The plaintiff has filed this suit for partition, rendition
of accounts and injunction regarding the following
properties:-
1 Property bearing No. 3857,Charkhewalan, Delhi
2 Property bearing No. B-14, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad
3 Shop N0.1881/A, Haweli Jugal Kishore, Chandni
Chowk, Delhi
4 Guest House being run by the HUF from premises No.
1881/A, Haweli Jugal Kishore, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
On 26.07.2006 this Court had directed the parties to
maintain status quo in respect of Shop No. 1881/A, Haweli
Jugal Kishore, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
There appears to be dispute between the parties
regarding the possession of two of the properties mentioned at
serial No. 3and 4. The counsel appearing for both the parties
say that this court may appoint a Local Commissioner to
verify the status of the properties at Serial No. 3 and 4 above
and report to this court as to the existing accommodation
available in the said properties and as to who is in possession
thereof. The counsel for both the parties have mutually agreed
that the parties shall maintain status quo in relation to all the
above mentioned four properties till their rights and liabilities
in the said properties are adjudicated by this Court in the
present proceedings.
In view of the above submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate (59,
Hemkunt Colony, Opposite Nehru Place, Delhi-110048
Mobile No. 9811176622) is hereby appointed as Local
Commissioner with directions to him to visit the suit
properties mentioned at serial Nos. 3 and 4 above and to
verify the accommodation available therein and also to
ascertain as to who is in possession thereof at the time of
execution of the Local Commission. The learned Local
Commissioner may prepare the rough sketch of the properties
he shall visit and may also take photographs of the said
premises. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
defendant No. l says that he shall arrange for the photographer
as well as for the draftsman for preparing the site plan of the
properties that the Local Commissioner has to visit. Both the
counsel have assured that they shall provide necessary
assistance to the Local Commissioner for execution of the
Commission. The learned Local Commissioner may take
police assistance also from the Local police, if required, for
execution of this Commission. The fee of the Local
Commissioner is fixed at Rs.50,000/-. The fee should be
shared by both the parties in equal shares. The learned Local
Commissioner is directed to file his report to this court within
3 days of the execution of the Commission along with all the
necessary exhibits.
A copy of this order be sent to the learned Local
Commissioner for information forthwith.
The parties are directed that they should maintain
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
status quo in relation to all the above mentioned four
properties including the properties mentioned at serial Nos. 3
and 4 above in terms of the report of the Local Commissioner.
All these applications stand disposed of in terms referred
above."
5. The local commissioner, who was appointed by the aforesaid
order dated 18th February, 2008 of this Court submitted his report on
19th August, 2009. With respect to the property at Serial No. 4 of the
list of properties as per the order dated 18th February, 2008, the local
commissioner observed thus:
"That with regard to the property mentioned at serial
no. 4 namely, "Guest House at Premises No. 1881/A, Haweli
Jugal Kishore. Chandni Chowk, the photographs of the entire
site was taken and a site plan was prepared. The
accommodation available at the property at serial no. 4 is duly
ascertained by the site plan so attached. On my arrival, the
Plaintiff, Defendant no. 2 and Defendant no. 3 were present.
Besides, there were two employees namely Viijy and Lovkush
Kumar. I was informed by the said two employees that the
guest house was being managed by Mr. Satish Kumar i.e.
Defendant no. 2 and Mr. Ashok-Kumar i.e. Defendant no. 1.
The said two employees further informed that the Plaintiff
visits the said guest house occasionally. I also perused the
private guest/ visitor registers. The said registers it may be
stated that the said registers were not licensed. From the
perusal of the said registers it was evident that the said
registers were being signed by Defendant no. 2, Mr. Satish
Kumar and on some occasions by Defendant no. 1, Mr. Ashok
Kumar. Two registers were perused by me- one for the period
11.7.2006 upto 24.6.2009 and the other for the period
24.6.2009 till date. In the said registers, the signatures of the
Plaintiff were not there, though I was informed by the
Plaintiff that though the guest house was not being run and
managed by the Plaintiff he was enjoying the possession
thereof in as much as on occasions, he visits the same and
stays overnight as well in any of the rooms so available in the
guest house. The said fact is denied by the Defendants. From
the inspection of the rooms, it cannot be borne out that the
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
Plaintiff has been occupying the said rooms. The keys of the
entire room are kept at the reception area of the said guest
house. Though the Plaintiff contends that he too has the
possession of the rooms, he does not have any set of separate
keys for the rooms, so built in the guest house. From the
inspection of the property at serial no. 4 it appears that the
said guest house is being managed and run by Defendant no. 2
and Defendant no. I. There is no document nor any relevant
material available at site which shows that the Plaintiff is in
possession of the property at serial no. 4. Plaintiff also states
that the Defendant no. I has been running and managing the
said guest house, since January 2009. The possession of the
parties over the property at serial no. 4 cannot be correctly
ascertained in view of the serious disputes between the parties
and their claim over the said property. The possession further
cannot be correctly ascertained in view of the fact that the
rooms in the guest house have been let out to different people
and their respective clients are lying in the said rooms.
The report is submitted accordingly."
6. Alleging that the petitioner and other defendants in CS 639/06
had violated the order of status quo passed by this Court on 18th
February, 2008, the respondent moved this Court by way of CCP(O)
106/2009. It was clearly alleged, in para 12 of the said contempt
petition that, by seeking to alter the status of the property at no. 1881,
the petitioner and other defendants in CS 639/06 were violating the
order dated 18th February, 2008. Accordingly, it was prayed that
action for contempt of court be initiated against them.
7. In the aforesaid CCP(O) 106/2009, while issuing notice, this
court passed the following order on 2nd September, 2009:
"Issue notice, Mr. Nalin Tripathi. Advocate, accepts
notice on behalf of Defendant No. 1. Issue notice to the non-
applicants/Defendant Nos. 2and 3, returnable on 11.11.2009.
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
The parties shall maintain status quo; in the
meanwhile, the S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali is directed to
inspect the premises and submit a report, in a sealed cover, to
the Court, within one week from today, as regards the present
status of possession.
Order dasti."
Subsequently, by order dated 31st January, 2012, this Court ordered
that CCP(O) 106/2009 and IA 11373/2008 would be decided
alongwith the main suit.
8. Respondent 1 moved an application before the learned ADJ
under Section 151 of the CPC alleging that the petitioner had illegally
converted one of the rooms of the guest house at 1881 into a shop and
had, thereby, disturbed the status quo in respect of the property. In
view thereof, the applicant prayed that directions be issued to the
petitioner to restore the status quo ante by removing the shop which
had been set up in the aforesaid room in the guest house.
9. The said application has come to be decided by the learned ADJ
by the order dated 24th December, 2018, which is subject matter of
challenge in the present petition. The learned ADJ has held that, by
converting one of the rooms in the guest house into a shop, the
petitioner had wilfully disobeyed the status quo orders dated 18th
February, 2008 supra and 2nd September, 2009 supra passed by this
Court. The petitioner was therefore, directed to restore the status quo
ante in respect of the premises at 1881 and the SHO of the
jurisdictional police station was directed to ensure compliance.
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
10. It is this order that the petitioner has sought to assail by the
present proceedings, initiated under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
11. Initially, there was some confusion regarding the municipal no.
of the shop in respect of which the status quo had been granted as, in
the order dated 18th February, 2008, the shop has been shown as Shop
No. 1881/A. That, however, appears to be a typographical error, as
the suit originally filed by Respondent 1 refers to Shop No. 1881, and
the order dated 26th July, 2006 also directed maintenance of status quo
in respect of the shop at 1881. It is also not in dispute that the guest
house that was being run by the petitioner was also in the property
situated at No. 1881. The CCP(O) 106/2009 which had been initially
filed by Respondent 1, alongwith other parties, alleging contumacious
disturbance by the petitioner, of the status quo order, also referred to
disturbance of the status quo qua the property at No. 1881. The
direction, in the order dated 2nd September, 2009, passed by this court
in CCP(O) 106/2009 is also, therefore, to be regarded as having been
passed in respect of 1881.
12. Mr. Nalin Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner today has
very fairly not argued on this aspect, but has sought to contend that the
original status quo order which was passed on 18th February, 2008,
holistically read, directed status quo in respect of the possession of the
property at 1881. He submits that, therefore, by merely converting
one of the rooms in the guest house to a shop, the status quo has not
been violated in the least. To substantiate his contention that the
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
status quo, as directed by this Court, was in respect of possession of
the premises at 1881, Mr. Tripathi has drawn my attention to the
penultimate paragraph of the order dated 18th February, 2008, which
subsequently directed the parties to maintain status quo in relation to
the four properties forming subject matter of the dispute including the
properties at Serial No. 3 and 4 (of which we are concerned with the
property at serial no. 4) in terms of the report of the local
commissioner. Mr. Tripathi has sought to juxtapose this direction with
the terms of reference of the local commissioner, in the preceding
paragraph of the same order, in which the local commissioner was
directed to verify the accommodation in the said properties and
ascertain who was in possession thereof at the time of execution of the
commission. Mr. Tripathi submits that, therefore, the status quo that
was directed by this court has to be regarded as status quo in respect
of possession of the suit properties and nothing more. There has, he
submits, been no change in the possession of the suit properties; ergo,
he submits, there is no violation of the direction for maintenance of
status quo.
13. Mr. Tripathi has also relied, in this context, on the opening
paragraph of the report dated 19th August, 2009 supra of the local
commissioner, in which the local commissioner has specifically
observed that he had been directed to verify the suit property and
ascertain "as to who is in possession thereof". Once therefore, the
parties in possession of the various portions of the suit property
continue to remain in possession thereof, Mr. Tripathi submits that
there could be no question of any violation of the order of status quo
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
passed by this Court.
14. As against this, Mr. Rajat Aneja, learned Counsel for the
respondent submits that status quo means status quo, and that the
status quo was not limited in terms but would cover status quo even
regarding user. He submits that no exception can be taken to the
finding of the learned ADJ, in the impugned order dated 24th
December, 2018 that, by converting one of the rooms in the house at
1881 into a shop, the petitioner had violated the order of status quo
passed by this Court.
15. Having heard learned Counsel for both sides and having
perused the record, I do not find that a case for interference with the
impugned order, within the parameters of the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution can be said to have been made
out.
16. The parameters of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227
are trite and well settled. In Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd.1, the Supreme Court has neatly encapsulated the scope of
Article 227 jurisdiction in the following passage:
"7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High
Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined
only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has
proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error
apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of
law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227
of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an
appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a
High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the
(2003) 3 SSC 524
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which
the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the
order or to correct errors of law in the decision."
17. The limitations on the scope of Article 227 have been recently
reiterated by the Supreme Court, in para 28 of the report in Ibrat
F aizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd.2 thus:
"28. The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of
the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case
of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd 3., which has been
consistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of
this Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand
Goel 4). Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article
227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the
parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution. It goes without saying that even while
considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence
under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while
granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the
National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the
rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India."
18. As noted, para 28 of the report refers to the earlier decisions of
the Supreme Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. 5 and
Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel 6. The relevant passages from
Estralla Rubber 5 and Garment Craft6 may also, therefore, be usefully
reproduced as under:
Estralla Rubber
2022 SCC Online SC 620
(2001) 8 SCC 97
2022 SCC OnLine SC 29
(2001) 8 SCC 97
2022 SCC OnLine SC 29
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
"7. This Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd.
v. Ram Tahel Ramnand 7 in para 12 has stated that the power
under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used
sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of
keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and, not for correcting mere errors.
Reference also has been made in this regard to the case
Waryam Singh v. Amarnath 8. This Court in Bathutmal
Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte 9 has observed that the
power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be
invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court
can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal
and that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 227 cannot convert itself into a court of appeal when
the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. Judged by
these pronounced principles, the High Court clearly exceeded
its jurisdiction under Article 227 in passing the impugned
order."
*****
Garment Craft
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly
of the view that the impugned order [Prakash Chand
Goel v. Garment Craft 10] is contrary to law and cannot be
sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from
the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court
exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of
first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts
upon which the determination under challenge is based.
Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or
even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be
supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own
decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court
or tribunal. [Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar
Kholkar 11] The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of
correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty
or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law
AIR 1972 SC 1598
AIR 1954 SC 215
AIR 1975 SC 1297
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11943
(2010) 1 SCC 217
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly
in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to
justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person
can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or
tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary
relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of
justice.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227,
this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd6 has
observed : (SCC pp. 101-102, para 6)
"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and
jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is examined and explained in a
number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of
power under this article involves a duty on the High
Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and to see that they do the
duty expected or required of them in a legal manner.
The High Court is not vested with any unlimited
prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong
decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of
the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this
power and interfering with the orders of the courts or
tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of
duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of
law or justice, where if the High Court does not
interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is
also well settled that the High Court while acting under
this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate
court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of
the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not
apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can
set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior
court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify
or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person
can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the
court or tribunal has come to."
19. To the same effect is the following enunciation of the law,
contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Puri Investments
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
v. Young Friends and Co.12:
"14. In the case before us, occupation of a portion of the
subject-premises by the three doctors stands admitted. What
has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is
that once the Tribunal had arrived at a finding on fact based
on the principles of law, which have been enunciated by this
Court, and reflected in the aforesaid passages quoted from
the three authorities, the interference by the High Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was
unwarranted. To persuade us to sustain the High Court's
order, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
emphasized that full control over the premises was never
ceded to the medical practitioners and the entry and exit to
the premises in question remained under exclusive control of
the respondent(s)-tenant. This is the main defence of the
tenant. We have considered the submissions of the
respective counsel and also gone through the decisions of the
fact-finding fora and also that of the High Court. At this
stage, we cannot revisit the factual aspects of the dispute.
Nor can we re-appreciate evidence to assess the quality
thereof, which has been considered by the two fact-finding
fora. The view of the forum of first instance was reversed by
the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court was conscious of the
restrictive nature of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. In the judgment under appeal, it has
been recorded that it could not subject the decision of the
appellate forum in a manner which would project as if it was
sitting in appeal. It proceeded, on such observation being
made, to opine that it was the duty of the supervisory Court
to interdict if it was found that findings of the appellate
forum were perverse. Three situations were spelt out in the
judgment under appeal as to when a finding on facts or
questions of law would be perverse. These are: --
(i) Erroneous on account of non-consideration of
material evidence, or
(ii) Being conclusions which are contrary to the
evidence, or
(iii) Based on inferences that are impermissible in
2022 SCC Online SC 283
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
law.
15. We are in agreement with the High Court's
enunciation of the principles of law on scope of interference
by the supervisory Court on decisions of the fact-finding
forum. But having gone through the decisions of the two
stages of fact-finding by the statutory fora, we are of the
view that there was overstepping of this boundary by the
supervisory Court. In its exercise of scrutinizing the
evidence to find out if any of the three aforesaid conditions
were breached, there was re-appreciation of evidence itself
by the supervisory Court.
16. In our opinion, the High Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in
the judgment under appeal had gone deep into the factual
arena to disagree with the final fact-finding forum. ......"
20. The court, therefore, under Article 227 of the Constitution,
functions with a narrow compass. It is concerned more with the court
below which has passed the order than with the order passed by the
court below. The Article 227 Court is not to examine the correctness
of the order passed by the court below, or even whether it is
erroneous, unless and until the error is such as would invite
supervisory correction in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the
High Court by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even orders
which are erroneous are, so long as they do not suffer from any such
jurisdictional error as would invite supervisory correction, ordinarily
immune from interference under Article 227. Needless to say, no
court functioning under Article 227 can substitute its subjective
decision, in place of the decision of the court below. Where such
decision is discretionary in nature, the parameters of Article 227 are
even more constricted.
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
21. In the present case, the impugned order dated 24th December,
2018, has taken the view that the order of status quo passed by this
Court on 18th February, 2008 and 2nd September, 2009 would extend
to user of the property at 1881 as well. This, in my opinion, cannot be
said to be a view which calls for supervisory correction by this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is a clearly plausible
view of the order passed by this Court, especially as the status quo
order dated 18th February, 2008 and reiterated on 2nd September, 2009
was unconditional in terms. Conditional status quo orders are
commonly passed by courts directing maintenance of status quo, in
respect of title, title and possession, construction etc. Where therefore,
the order of status quo was unconditional, the learned ADJ cannot be
said to have erred in treating the status quo as covering all aspects of
the property at 1881, which would include user of the rooms in the
guest house.
22. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir has, in Ghulam Ahmad
Dar v. Mushtaq Ahmad Shah13, understood "status quo", thus:
"16. It is beaten law of the land that 'status-quo' means that
whatever position is existing on spot is to be maintained.
17. In Black's Law Dictionary, the word 'status-quo' has
been defined as under:--
"Status-quo:-- The situation that existed before
something else (being discussed) occurred."
18. In New Shorter Oxford Dictionary, the word 'status-
quo' has been defined as under:--
AIR 2006 J &K 91
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
"Status-quo:-- The existing state of affairs."
19. In Wharton's Law Lexicon, the word 'status-quo' has
been defined as under:--
"Status-quo:-- the existing state of things at any given
date; e.g., Status quo ante bellum, the state of things
before the war."
20. In New Webster's Dictionary, the word 'status-quo'
has been defined as under:--
"Status-quo:-- The State in which anything was or is;
the existing state of affairs.
21. While going through the aforesaid definitions, one
come to an inescapable conclusion that 'status-quo' means
that the existing position at the time of order should not be
changed which means that in no way the features or character
of the subject matter should be altered or changed."
23. I respectfully concur with the aforesaid understanding of the
concept of status quo, when employed in a judicial order.
24. Read thus, I find no reason to differ with the view of the learned
ADJ that, by converting one of the rooms in the guest house at 1881
into a shop, the order of status quo passed by this Court on 18th
February, 2008, and reiterated on 2nd September, 2009 was violated.
Nor consequently, does any occasion arise to interfere with the
consequential direction to restore the status quo ante.
25. The impugned order dated 24th September, 2018, passed by the
learned ADJ does not calls for any interference in exercise of the
supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court by Article 227 of the
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
Constitution of India.
26. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
MAY 31, 2022/kr
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.06.2022
12:07:20
