Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

Maintaining Status Quo Paramount in Property Disputes: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court today made a significant observation in the ongoing property dispute case of Madhuri Goel vs Chandra Prakash & Anr., emphasizing the importance of maintaining the status quo in property disputes. The court’s ruling came as a relief to the petitioner, Madhuri Goel, who had challenged the Trial Court’s order directing her to amend her plaint to include the relief of declaration, possession, and consequential relief of injunction.

In the case presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, the High Court emphasized, “It is essential to respect and maintain the status quo orders in property disputes to ensure justice and prevent illegal dispossession.” This statement came during the hearing of the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Trial Court’s decision.

The petitioner, Madhuri Goel, claimed that she was in constructive possession of the disputed property through her tenants as of the date of the institution of the suit. Her counsel argued that despite the Trial Court’s status quo order dated March 8, 2022, the respondents illegally dispossessed the petitioner on March 10, 2022. Subsequently, an application was filed under Section 151 of the CPC for the restoration of possession, which is pending adjudication.

The Delhi High Court acknowledged the merit in the petitioner’s submissions. Justice Arora stated, “The enforcement of the Trial Court’s directives necessitates prior resolution of the Section 151 CPC application.” The court thus kept the operation of the Trial Court’s order dated August 1, 2023, in abeyance, pending the adjudication of the Section 151 CPC application.

The court further directed that, should the application be dismissed, the petitioner would be required to amend her plaint within four weeks to comply with the Trial Court’s directives.

Date of Decision: 8 December 2023

MADHURI GOEL VS CHANDRA PRAKASH & ANR.

 

Latest Legal News