CRP 183/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge is the judgment and order dated 06.03.2010 passed by the learned Ci vil Judge No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc Appeal No.23/2008 affirming the order d ated 30.06.2008 passed by the learned Munsiff No.4, Kamrup in Misc (J) Case No.1 42/2008 arising out of Title Suit No.97/2008. Thereby, the learned trial court d irected the parties to the suit/misc application to maintain status quo of the s uit land. I have heard Mr. B. Ullah, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite party. The opposite party, as the plaintiff instituted the aforementioned suit against the petitioner praying for a decree for declaration of right, title and interest in the suit land as well as for permanent injunction. According to her, she wa s the owner in possession of the suit land described in the schedule to the plai nt and that the petitioner-defendant had without her knowledge and approval and in her absence tried to encroach upon thereon and grab the same. She further ur ged that the petitioner-defendant used very often to threaten her tenants and cr eate disturbances and nuisance by blocking the entrance to the suit land. She a lso referred to an incident of assault by the petitioner-defendant on her sons o n 26.03.2008 when they (sons of the opposite party/plaintiff) had objected to hi s activity etc. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short referred to as the Code) read with section 151 of the Code was also filed narrating the above facts seeking an order of ad interim injunction to restrain the petitioner, his heirs etc from disturbing peaceful possession o f the suit land. The petitioner, in his written statement inter alia contended that the opposite party was not the owner in possession of the land and that in fact, she was not entitled thereto under the Mohammadam Law. He also specifically denied the alle gation of trespass and assault. He claimed to be in exclusive possession of the suit land. His objection against the application for ad interim injunction was also in similar lines. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleadings on record, by order dated 30.06.2008 directed them to maintain status quo in support of the suit land till the disposal of the main suit, being aggrieved the petitioner preferred the aforementioned appeal w hich was dismissed. Mr. Ullah has emphatically urged that as the suit filed by the opposite party-pl aintiff was one for a decree for declaration, in absence of any prayer for conse quential relief, not only the application for ad interim injunction was mis- con ceived, the order of status quo granted by the learned trial Court was untenable in law and on facts. While contending that the opposite party per-se had no right, title, interest in or possession of the suit land at any point of time, the learned counsel has fu rther urged that as both the Courts below had failed to take note of three funda mental principles pertaining to grant of temporary injunction, it is a fit case where this Court would exercise its revisional-superintending jurisdiction to in terfere with the order impugned. Upon hearing Mr. Ullah and considering the pleadings of the parties, as availabl e on record, this Court is not in a position to persuade itself to concur with t he pleas raised. The learned trial Court as well as the lower appellate court, as the orders passed by them disclose, had duly taken note of the pleaded stands of the parties as well as the three cardinal norms of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in passing the order of status quo being co nsciously aware that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was in the pos session of the suit land. In coming to this conclusion, the learned courts below inter alia noted the claim of the opposite party-plaintiff in the suit land on the basis of inheritance from the original ownership thereof Jalaluddin Ahmed(si nce deceased) her father-in-law and the plea of the petitioner-defendant that un der the Mohammadam Law she could not claim any right, title and interest in the suit land. The learned courts below, in my opinion, rightly did not venture to adjudicate the issue of title at that stage. On balancing the rival pleadings, the learned courts below passed the order of status quo vis-à-vis the suit land . In the above facts and circumstances considering the limited issue before this C ourt, no interference with the impugned order is called for. This Court refrain s from making further comments on the other contentions before it, as the suit i s pending before the learned court below. The learned court below is request to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months herefrom. The petition is rejected. No costs.