2026:JHHC:25811 1 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 513 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Miscellaneous Appeal No. 513 of 2025 ------ Subhash Kumar Choudhary, aged about 54 years, son of Late Bihari Lal Choudhary, resident of Telephone Exchange Road, P.O. and P.S. Bank More District - Dhanbad .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. Beli Mandalian, aged about 67 years, daughter of Late Niwaran Mandal 2. Manorama Mandal, aged about 59 years, daughter of Late Niwaran Mandal, wife of Ranjit Mandal, presently residing at Sector 4 A, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City District Bokaro 3. Binod Mandal, aged about 58 years, son of Late Gastu Mandal 4. Lakhan Mandal, aged about 73 years, son of Late Shripati Mandal @ Shipoti Mandal 5. Chinta Devi, aged about 60 years, wife of Late Bhagirath Mandal 6. Dablu Kumar Mandal, aged about 45 years, son of Late Bhagirath Mandal 7. Alok Kumar Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of Late Bhagirath Mandal 8. Srikant Mandal, aged about 57 years, son of Late Sadanand Mandal 9. Bandana Devi, aged about 43 years, daughter of Late Tarni Mandal All above (except plaintiff no. 2) resident of Gunghasa, P.O. Gomoh, P.S. Hariharpur (Gomoh), District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 10. Haradhan Mandal, aged about 61 years, son of Late Prahlad Mandal 11. Satish Mandal, aged about 58 years, son of Late Shripati Mandal @ Shipoti Mandal 12. Anil Mandal, aged about 56 years, son of Late Kashi Mandal 13. Nepal Chandra Mandal, aged about 72 years, son of Late Badan Mandal 14. Pradip Mandal, aged about 47 years, son of Late Badan Mandal 15. Prayag Mandal, aged about 63 years, son of Late Kashi Mandal 16. Manoj Mandal, aged about 47 years, son of Late Gyan Chand Mandal 17. Sanjay Mandal @ Sanjay Kumar Mandal, aged about 55 years, son of Late Gyan Chand Mandal 18. Ruplal Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of Late Gyan Chand Mandal 19. Vijay Mandal, aged about 30 years, son of Late Tapeshwar Mandal 20. Rakesh Mandal, aged about 27 years, son of Late Tapeshwar Mandal 21. Jageshwar Mandal, aged about 69 years, son of Late Pavan Mandal 22. Bhuneshwar Mandal, aged about 67 years, son of Late Pavan Mandal 23. Gangadhar Mandal, aged about 48 years, son of Late Pavan Mandal 24. Ajay Mandal, aged about 41 years, son of Late Pavan Mandal 25. Sandip Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of Late Ranjit Mandal 26. Panu Mandal, aged about 56 years, son of Late Raghu Mandal 27. Nagar Mandal, aged about 67 years, son of Late Kashi Mandal 28. Arvind Mandal, aged about 43 years, son of Late Prabhu Mandal All residents of Gunghasa, P.S. Hariharpur (Gomoh), District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 29. Pankaj Kumar Agarwal, son of Anandi Lal Agarwal, Purana Bazar, Near Bishop Rockey High School, Jitpur Marg, P.O. Gomoh, P.S. Hariharpur (Gomoh), District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Respondents 2 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 513 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Res. Nos.1-9 : Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate ------ 04/27.08.2026 Notices have been issued upon the respondent nos.1 to 29, pursuant to that respondent Nos.1 to 9 have appeared through Vakalatnama, however, respondent nos.10 to 29 have chosen not to appear and notice upon them are validly served. By the order dated 06.08.2026, with a view to provide one more opportunity to the respondent nos.10 to 29, the matter was adjourned on that day, however, respondent nos.10 to 29 still have not appeared and in view of that this appeal is being heard in absence of respondent nos.10 to 29. 2. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kaustav Roy, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 9. 3. This appeal is preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Dhanbad in MCA No. 106 of 2024 in Original Suit No. 342 of 2023) whereby the learned Court, despite having categorically rejected the plaintiffs' application (M.C.A. No. 106 of 2024) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. for temporary injunction, has erroneously directed the continuation of the ad-interim order of status quo till the final disposal of the suit. 4. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that plaintiffs/respondents instituted Original Suit No.342 of 2023 on 05.12.2023 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Dhanbad seeking declaration of title, cancellation of certain registered sale deeds executed in favour of the present appellant, permanent and mandatory injunction and consequential reliefs with details made in the plaint. He submits that during pendency of the said suit, MCA No.106 of 2024 was filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, dispossessing or raising construction over the suit property. He submits that the appellant herein has filed a detail show cause and contested the 3 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 513 of 2025 application which has been decided by the impugned order. He next submits that the learned court although has been pleased to reject the said petition, however, in later part of the order has allowed the status quo. He submits that on the one hand the petition has been rejected and on the other hand it has been allowed. Learned court has not found prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs and in spite of that status quo order has been passed after rejecting the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 5. Mr. Kaustav Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 9 opposed the prayer and submits that once the suit property will be disposed of, nothing will be remained to be decided and in the light of that, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Dhanbad has rightly passed the status quo order after rejecting the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC. On these grounds, he submits that the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 6. Admittedly, the suit has been instituted on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents to pass a decree for declaration in a suit for cancellation of documents to the effect that the plaintiffs are possession of schedule "A" landed property and the defendants have no right, title, interest and concern whatsoever with the suit land and prayer for permanent injunction and consequential prayer has also been made. It transpires from the impugned order that both the parties have sold certain portion of land and even the learned court has held that prima facie case and balance of convenience are not proved, however, has granted status quo order after rejecting the said petition. The suit is still pending and the dispute is there of jointness and the allegations are made of selling of the said property. It is well settled principle of law that the relief by way of interlocutory injunction can be granted to mitigate the risk of injustice during the period before the uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. However, before granting ad-interim injunction, the court is also 4 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 513 of 2025 required to determine as to whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff as also whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case or not. Learned court considering this aspect of the matter, has been pleased to grant the status quo order, however, erred after rejecting the said petition to pass such order. 7. Equity is one of the most important consideration in grant of injunction which is a preventive relief. The right to enjoy peacefully a property is an important right attached to any interest which may be finally awarded in the suit. Prima facie, the learned court has found these are the aspects and in view of that has been pleased to grant status quo order, however, illegality has been done after rejecting the said petition and the status quo order has been passed. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Dhanbad in MCA No. 106 of 2024 in Original Suit No. 342 of 2023), is hereby, set aside. The said petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC is restored to the file of the said court and the learned court will pass fresh order after providing fresh opportunity to the parties in the light of the above observation. 9. This appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 27.08.2026 Anit A.F.R. Uploaded 28.08.2026