1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.---The instant revision Petition has been preferred against the Order dated 15-4- 2009 passed by learned Additional Judge Astore in Revision Petition No, 21 of 2008 whereby the learned Additional District Judge has turned down the impugned Order dated 8-7-2008 and 22-10- 2008 passed by learned Civil Judge Astore, hence this revision petition before this Court.
2. ' The facts, revealing from the pleadings of the parties, briefly are as such that, the plaintiff claims ownership over the disputed land but admits the tenant-ship in possession of the defendant No,1 devolved to him from the time of his forefatheRs, The plaintiff.Challenges the legal sanction of sale transaction between the defendants Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the land in question and also claims taking back of possession of it from defendant No,2 just before institution of suit on his own accord and also prays perpetual injunction from the Court to prevent the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering into the disputed land, he also prays, temporary injunction in this respect through the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. Pending disposal of the suit.
3. ' The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed the written statement with the contention that, initially the forefathers of defendant No,1 were tenants of the forefathers of the plaintiff over the disputed land, but in the year 1975 the grandfather of the plaintiff granted the same to the plaintiff with the rights of ownership since then the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land as owner and in the year 2005 he sold it to defendant No, 2 for the consideration of Rs, 80,000 and since sale transaction the defendant No,2 is in possession of the subject matter. The plaintiff once tried to take possession of the disputed land just before the institution of the suit but failed.
4. ' The learned Civil Judge after receiving written statement passed the Order dated 8-7-2008 dealing with the application for temporary injunction. The same was asked to review under section 151, C.P.C. (though the order was appealable) submitting the application by the defendants with the contention as stated in para 2 of the application which is reproduced hereunder:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The plaintiff submitted his replication to the above application and replied to the Para No,2. The application as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The application was refused vide order dated 22-10-2008. The present respondent went to the 1st Appellate Court in revision. The learned 1st Appellate Court discarded both the orders and set aside vide impugned order under the revision petition before me.
5. ' I heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the respondents raised the preliminary objection at the very outset of the arguments that, the impugned order has been passed in revision petition before the !Earned 1st Appellate Court and the revisional jurisdiction being concurrent, the 2nd revision petition before this court is not competent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was confronted to meet the point and he tried to meet the same with the contention that, the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Judge were appealable before the 1st Appellate Court and no revision was competent before as such under law the impugned order would be considered to be passed in 1st appeal and this revision petition is competent against the impugned Order. I found some technical and factual defects in the impugned order and very shockingly has noticed legal blunders of the trial Court in both the orders he passed as such I seriously feel need of giving guidelines in the case and in general to the subordinate'
6. Judiciary to follow in cases of like nature, therefore, I am going to pass this order in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction, without going to give any finding on the point supra.
7. ' On the merits of the case I am going to discuss the order dated 8-7-2008 1st which is reproduced as it requires surgery.
8. 8-7-2008 "plaintiff in person along with counsel present. Defendants through defendant No,2 along with counsel present and filed written statement. Copy of written statement supplied to the plaintiff put up 22-8-2008 for rejoinder. Status quo in the sense of ad-interim injunction as prayed for in the plaint be maintained with observation that in case failure of plaintiff to prove his title he will return the subject land with mesne profits."
9. Sd/xxxx Civil Judge Astore.
10. ' The order prima facie gives ugly picture of ignorance of law and facts of the case and shows careless and painless attitude of the Judicial Officer in determination of rights of the litigants, for the reasons that (a) the order is unheard and ex parte:- the trial Judge passed the order unheard and ex parte despite the fact that the defendants were called and they attended the Court with submission of their written statement (b) the order is ad interim but final:- an erroneous contradictory combination, this wrong approach of the Judge would be discussed in subsequent paras of this order in detail (c) an order for maintaining status-quo but creating a situation of ante status quo (d) the order shows that the Judge has granted the relief to the plaintiff at the early stage of the suit without going into procedural stages of trial as the leaned Judge has used the term as "prayed for in the plaint".
11. ' The above order adversely affected the defendants as such they invited revisit of the learned Civil Judge through their application under section 151, C.P.C. (the order is appealable and the defendants ought to have appealed against) but there was no legal impediment on the way, if the learned Judge wanted to cure the legal defects apparent on the face of the order, particularly when the unwarranted effects of the order came to his notice through para 2 of the application and its reply by the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff has categorically conceded that, the possession of the subject-matter has gone to him in result of the impugned order of the Court. The learned trial Judge did not bother to review the order even then.
12. ' The above discussion compels me to give an elaborative note on the terms "ad interim" and "status quo" as this Court has often observed misconception and misconceiving rather misuse of both the terms by the subordinate Judiciary in the area as such the terms are required to be interpreted and defined for proper guidance of Subordinate Judiciary to adopt in future as under:- - The term ad interim.---The latin word, having meaning as "meantime temporary" and the Courts of law use this term to issue temporary injunction ex parte with or without issuance of notice to the opposite party in very rare cases after minutely examining the facts and being satisfied that if the ad interim B injunction is not granted in dispense with the procedure laid down in Order XXXIX, Rule 3, C.P.C. Then the very object would. Be defeated but the order would not exceed fifteen days.
13. Ordinary the Courts while exercising the discretion should be careful of real urgency and special circumstances of each case which extremely demand passing of an ex parte injunction. In the case in hand, the trial Court has not only granted the impugned order without notice, unheard, and without assigning reasons of urgency, but erroneously has confirmed the same pending disposal of the suit, behaving like' an arbitrator rather to behave like a Judicial Officer, hence the same order is nullity in the eyes of law.
14. ' Status quo.---This Court has observed in most cases that the subordinate Courts in Gilgit- Baltistan use this legal term as routine practice to direct parties or any party to maintain status quo of the subject matter without defining or determining the situation existing at the day of the issuance of the status-quo or at the day of the institution of the suit, hence I deem it important to define the term status quo and its effects for guidance of lower judiciary. Status quo means to maintain the subject matter as it was at the day the suit was instituted. It does not mean to alter,the situation or create new situation as such is obligatory on the Judicial Officers to satisfy themselves about the state of affairs on the day the order is passed particularly when parties are at variance in their pleas about the situation of the subject-matter on the day, the Courts must no/ issue status quo blindly as usual practice but to inquire into the matter to ascertain the real and existing situation of the subject matter on the day.
15. ' In the case in hand the parties are at variance about the situation of the subject matter existing at the time the suit was instituted. The D plaintiff states in the plaint that he has taken the possession of the subject-matter from the defendant, just before institution of the suit by means known to him, despite the fact that he admits that the defendant No,1 was in possession of the suit land as tenant since time of their ancestoRs, The defendants have contradicted the above plea with the contention that the plaintiff had forcefully tried to take disputed land by sowing maize but the defendant No,2 took back the possession by sowing potatoes over the disputed land. In such situation the Civil Judge was first to inquire into things to determine the situation of the subject matter then to pass any order. The trial Judge did not bother to correct the state of affairs even when the new situation came to his notice as has been stated in Para .2 of the application under section 151, C.P.C. And has been conceded by the plaintiff in Para 2 of the replication to the application under section 151, C.P.C. That, he has taken possession of the suit land in result of the impugned Order, as such the impugned order created a new situation but the Civil Court did not realize its blunder.
16. ' The above discussion witnesses that the learned 1st Appellate Court has rightly discarded the impugned orders passed by the trial Court but in my opinion the order passed by the Additional Judge is not sufficient to bring the state of affairs as were at the day the suit 'was instituted and remained as confused as were in the result of impugned orders by the trial Court for instance the learned District Judge did not issue any directives to the trial court to conduct any inquiry to bring back the situation of the subject matter existing at the day the suit was instituted and left the situation undetermined and let the parties in tug of war for.
17. ' Consequent upon I maintained the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge and in addition I issue directives to the trial Court to hold an inquiry for determining the state of affairs in respect of the subject matter prevailing at the day the suit was instituted and to pass the order to maintain the same by the parties pending disposal of the suit. No orders as to costs.