Judgment

S.Panda, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in C.S No.92/136 of 2010/2009 allowing the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C for amendment of the plaint.

2. The facts leading to the present case are that opposite party nos.1 to 8 as plaintiffs filed C.S No.92/136 of 2010/2009 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri for partition and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land described in Schedules A and B of the plaint. The plaintiffs in the plaint inter alia alleged that they are in possession of the land for more than the prescribed period as such they have perfected title thereto though the Record of Rights stand in the name of one Janha Bewa, the mother of defendant no.1, who was allotted with a share in a family partition in the year 1930. The plaintiffs also challenged the Sale Deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of other defendants.

2.1 After receiving notice, the petitioners, who are defendant nos.1 to 8 appeared in the suit and filed their written statement traversing the allegations made by the plaintiffs. They have specifically taken a stand that in the year 1933 a family partition was made and the properties were partition between Banchha Prusty, Niladri Prusty and Dama Prusty, who were the sons of Kanhei Prusty. Bancha died leaving Mohan Prusty, the adopted father of defendant no.1 and husband of Janha Bewa. Niladri, Dama and Mohan were allotted with Ac.4.60, Ac.4.568 and Ac.4.522 decimals respectively and they were in peaceful possession over the said land since then. It was further stated that Dama and Niladri died issueless. The land allotted to them devolved on Mohan as their successor and Mohan being the exclusive owner was in possession of the properties. After death of Mohan, his widow Janha and defendant no.1 were in possession of the suit properties. After death of Janha, defendant no.1 continued to possess the suit properties. The plaintiffs are successor-in-interest of Satyabadi Prusty and they were in separate possession of the land. It is also stated that defendant no.1 and Janha have filed O.S No.116/72 of 1972/1966 against the ancestors of the plaintiffs and others for partition, which was dismissed in view of the earlier partition of the year 1933. Thereafter Fist Appeal No.115 of 1973 was preferred before this Court, which was also dismissed on 27.11.1984 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. In the said suit the trial court vide its judgment dated 24.2.1973 at paragraph-7 specifically recorded a finding that the witnesses have deposed in support of such adoption but the contesting defendants in their written statement have mentioned that present plaintiff no.2 is the adopted son of Mohan Prusty. So necessarily it is held that said adoption is true and plaintiff no.2 is the son of Mohan Prusty on adoption.

2.2 While matter stood thus, the present plaintiffs filed I.A No.252 of 2009 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C for ad interim injunction stating that they have perfected title to the suit lands through adverse possession against defendant no.1 and his mother Janha Bewa. The petitioners also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C, which was registered as I.A No.254 of 2009. The trial court by common order dated 30.11.2009 while allowing the application for injunction filed by the petitioners rejected the application of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved the plaintiffs preferred F.A.O Nos.107 and 108 of 2009 before the learned District Judge, Puri. The lower Appellate Court directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit land till disposal of the suit. However, the said order of the lower Appellate Court was challenged before this Court. In course of hearing, the parties have admitted about status quo order over the suit land. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed