HIGH COURT’F O CHHATTISARH G AT BILASPUR Apnhcation Under Order XXX1X Rule 2 A of the Code of Cwrl Procedure r Present‘ , r: Prafull Bharat and 8hr: AK Prasad counse! f6? the app]rcantiappeliantlpiamtrff Shrr Anoop Marumdar counse! for the responeients/defendants l i eRAL ORDER r r (PassedT 'on 12 December, 2007} Heard on appiication Under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the éode cf Civi! Procedure (hereinafter “the Code”). 2. lt is not in dispute that the unsuccessfui appiicant/plaintiff in Civii Suit No.37-A/1987 had preferred First Appeai No.18/2000 in the High Coart oni25—1 1—2009. The said appeai came up fer hearing for the first time on é8-12-2000. No interim‘order was passed on the said day. Oh 13-02-2 01 Ean appiication was ‘fiTed by the appeilani/piaintiffunder Grder 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code for erant of stay in which it was prayed that the respondents/defendants be restrained not only from al enatmgltrans‘eiring the sutt land to any other person during oenclen LI of the appeal but also to maintain status quo in relat on to l . l l l l l l l " : i i ; $§nqié Eench : Hon’b§e§hri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. M.C.C. No. 136 of 2694 l APPUCANT‘ Krishna Kumar Tiwari, S/o Late APPELLAMT Rameshwar Pujari, age 34 years, 1 Occupation-Agriculture, r/o Village i i Ramanujganj, Tahsil Pal, District { 1 l Surguja (C.G,) I ’ Vgrsus ‘ u ‘ NGN-AP?L16ANTS 1. Bharat Prasad Tiwari @ Lallu Babu §RESPONDENTS ’ z’o Late Rameshwar Pujari, age 42 Nomz § years, Occupation-Agricukure. 1 Vidyavati Devi Wfo Shri Bharat \ Prasad Tiwari @ Laliu Baby, age 37 l years. 1 ! Both r/o Vinage Ramanujganj, Tehsil 1 Pal, District Surguja (C.G.) @ the existing condition of the suit Sand. On 01 -08-2001, the foHowing srder was passed by the High Court in the order sheet: “Mr. Sunil Sinha, for the appellant. Mr. P. Diwakar, ’for the respondent. As prayed iist the case after two weeks. Meanwhite, [the parties shall maintain status-quo as is existing today. CC.” 3. é perusai of record of First Appeai No.1812000 also shows that the respondents/piaintiffs have made two appiications on 29-07~2003 for vacating stay/status-quo order dated 01-08-2001 and also on 8—10-2004 tor modification of’the order dated 01-08-2001 on the grounld that the structure being a highly diiapidated structure needed minori repairs and thefts were taking ptace. 4. The respondents/defendants flied repiy to theappiication under Order? 39 Ruie 2—A of the Code and submitted that the status—duo ordered by the Court on 01-08-2001 was'vague because it did not specify as to in what manner and in reiation to what property was the status-duo ordered. Shri Anoop Majumdar, iearned couns‘e‘i for the respo’itdents/defendants aiso submitted that if any repairing work has been {undertaken by the respondentfde'fendants for Lip-keeping the propeity and preventing the same from being demolished, the ‘respohdents/defendants have tendered an unconditionai apoiogy. 5. iShri Prafuii Bharat, teamed counsel'for the appellant has placed reiiance on P.G. Patra vs. Puran Foods and another (2003) 1 SCC so? ahd Kedarnath Gupta vs. Rambaiiqupta &\another 2006 (1) C.G.Lld.298. Shri Anoop Majurndar, learned counsel for the respoddents/defendants on the other hand placed reliance on Mia hara‘t Coking Coal Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1988 SC 12?. l l . \ l l i r l 6. jHaving considered the rival submissions l have perused the record%. lt is pertinfnt to note that the order dated ‘01 —08~2001 does not show that theerd‘er was passed on any application ’or request by l pames much iess on an apphcation for gfant of mjunction under Order 39 me 1 & 2 of the Code med by the appenantimamti‘f It aiso does peelfy the sublect matter In regard to which the parties were req ired to maintam status-quo There rs no material to Show as to wha was the status-quo prevalent on the date of the order. l have atso perused the apptication filed by the respondents/defendants on 29- 7-2003 for vacating stay and on 08-1 0-2004 for modification of the said order. An order of injunction is a sine qua non for prooeeding undeir Order 39 Ruie 2—A of the Code. There being no specific injunction granted by this Court on 01-98-2001 the question of disopé‘dience thereof would not arise. l am therefore, not inclined to prodeed under Order 39 Rule .2-A of the Code against the non— applicant.- i 7. ‘ Shri Prafull Bharat, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff haslnot disputed that the respondents/defendants have, after MCC. 136/2004 not made any construction whatsoever over the suit premises Shri Anoop Majumdar, learned coun’sei for the respondentsidefendants also undertakes that the respondents/defendants shall not raise any construction whatsoever on the suit premises Without the permission of the Court and shall not t t t V t t o l service of notice on l in arty manner alter the nature of construction existing on thesuit land. l in view of the above, application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the . r l 8. Code is dismissed r , l l l Sdl- l Dlhp RaoSaheb‘Deshmukh ‘1 Judge