The parties are (or a party is) normally directed to maintain status quo in regard to a property, so that the position does not get altered or become irreversible pending decision in the suit or legal proceeding. The term ‘status quo’ means the ‘situation that currently exists’ or the ‘existing state of things at any given point of time’.
The Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Limited v State of Bihar and Others’, has recognised the fact that “the expression “status quo” is undoubtedly a term of ambiguity and at times give arise to doubt and difficulty”.
The Court while making an order to maintain status quo, should endeavour to clarify the conditions, in the context of which or subject to which, such direction is issued, as the words status quo take contextual meaning and may give room for several different interpretations. Let us illustrate.
Illustration (i):
If a person puts up a construction in his site violating the set back requirements and if the owner of a property approaches the Court seeking an injunction restraining the adjoining owner from proceeding with the construction in violation of building bye-laws and the Court orders status quo, the order may mean that no further construction shall be made and the construction shall be maintained in the same position as on the date of the order.
Illustration (ii):
If a member of a joint family files an application seeking an injunction in a suit for partition, restraining the kartha from alienating the joint family property and the Court grants an order of status quo, it may mean that the defendant should not alienate the property.
Illustration (iii):
If a plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the defendant from harvesting a crop in the suit land and the Court orders status quo, it may mean that defendant should not harvest the standing crop.
Illustration (iv):
In a service litigation, if the employee seeks a direction to employer not to terminate his services and the Court directs defendant to maintain status quo, it may mean that defendant should not terminate the service of the employee.
An order of status quo is a specie of interim orders, when granted indiscriminately and without qualifications or conditions, leads to ambiguity, difficulties, and injustice. If Courts want to give interim relief, they should endeavour to give specific injunctive relief. If grant of order of ‘status quo’ is found to be the only appropriate relief, then Courts should indicate the nature of status quo, that is whether the status quo is in regard to possession, title, nature of property or some other aspect.
Merely saying ‘status quo’ or ‘status quo to be maintained’ should be avoided. If in a suit for injunction, where plaintiff claims that he is in possession of the suit property and the defendant is attempting to interfere with his possession, and the defendant contends that he is in possession and petitioner was never in possession, if the Court merely directs status quo to be maintained by parties, without saying anything more, it Will cause confusion and in many cases even lead to breach of peace.
On the basis of such order, the plaintiff would contend that he is in possession and he is entitled to continue in possession; and the defendant would contend that he is in possession and he is entitled to continue in possession. In such a case, if the Court wants to direct status quo, it should specify the context in which, or conditions subject to which, such status quo direction is issued.
Reference
N. Ramaiah vs Nagaraj S. And Another (AIR 2001 Kant 395)