AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1474 ::2006 AIR SCW 1077 ::2006 Lab IC 156 ::2006 (2) AIR Jhar R 308 ::(2006) 1 CLR 383 (SC) ::2006 (1) CLR 383 ::(2006) 100 RevDec 456 ::(2006) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 592 ::(2006) ILR (Kant) 1975 ::2006 (3) Civ LJ 721 ::(2006) 1 All RentCas 621 ::2006 (3) SCC 312 ::(2006) 1 RecCivR 735 ::(2006) 2 Scale 304 ::(2006) 1 JCR 416.1 (Jha) ::2006 (1) JCR 416 ::(2006) 1 CurCC 211 ::(2006) 2 AllMR 56 (SC) ::2006 (2) All MR 56 ::2006 (3) Cal HN 27 ::2006 (62) All LR 776 ::2006 (2) All WC 1142 ::2006 (1) HRR 512 ::(2006) 2 ICC 420 ::2006 (101) CutLT 659 ::(2006) 3 CTC 185 (SC) ::2006 (2) MadLJ206 ::MANU/SC/940/2006 ::2006 (2) MadLW 798 ::(2006) 2 AndhLD 65 ::2006 (2) JLJR 276 ::(2006) 3 JCR 162 (SC) ::(2006) 1 KCCR 556 ::2006 (2) RajLW 938 ::2006 (2) PatLJR 237 ::2006 (1) RentLR 497 ::(2006) 2 SCJ 585 ::(2006) 3 LandLR 300 ::2006 (2) Supreme 75 ::(2006) 39 AllIndCas 71 (SC) ::2006 (39) AllIndCas 71 ::2006 (3) SRJ 400

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Calcutta)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): Satya Brata Sinha, P. K. Balasubramanyan , JJ

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.39 R.1, O.39 R.2— Injunction against dispossession - Refusal to grant ad interim ex parte injunction - Appeal against - Order of appellate Court ordering status quo without indicating what the status quo was - Not proper. The appellant in a suit for declaration of his status as tenant had applied for interim injunction against his dispossession pending suit. The Court refused to grant ad interim ex parte order of injunction. An appeal was filed against such refusal. The appellate Court passed an order of status quo without indicating what the status quo was. The order was improper. If the appellate Court was satisfied that the appellant before him had made out a prima facie case for an ad interim ex parte injunction and the balance of convenience justified the grant of such an injunction, it was for him to have passed such an order of injunction. But simply directing the parties to maintain status quo without indicating what the status quo was, is not an order that should be passed at the initial stage of a litigation, especially when one Court had found no reason to grant an ex parte order of injunction and the appellate Court was dealing with only the limited question whether an ad interim order of injunction should or should not have been granted by the trial Court, since the appeal was only against the refusal of an ad inte....