Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY, J.
Amrutakanta Das – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Snehalata Das and others – Respondents
C.M.P. No.400 of 2025
Decided On : 10-11-2025
For the Appellant :Ms. M. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. U.K. Samal, Advocate, Mr. M.B. Smrutiranjan, Advocate
A party's business needs should be respected, and inherent powers under Section 151 can allow use of property despite existing orders, provided it does not conflict with explicit provisions.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Order 39 Rule 4 - Request for permission to expand petrol pump premises denied by trial court - Defendant No.5 sought extension for business needs after land acquisition - Plaintiff denied necessity for expansion - Court recognizes that a party's business needs concerning land fall within their purview and should be respected considering the absence of dispute over current use - Interim status quo maintained while allowing expansion of specific land for Defendant No.5’s petrol pump - Court underscores distinction between maintaining status quo and seeking permission for use in the context of ongoing litigation. (Paras 2, 4, 10, 15)
Facts of the case:
The current application arises from a partition suit wherein Defendant No.5 sought permission to expand his petrol pump after 1650 sq. ft. had been acquired by the state for road development, which he claimed impacted his business operations. The Plaintiff argued against the necessity for expansion.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the need for expansion of the petrol pump by Defendant No.5 was valid and unobjectionable, especially since the existence of the petrol pump was acknowledged and there was no ongoing dispute about the current operations.
Issues: The key issue revolved around the necessity of the expansion of the petrol pump and whether the application under Section 151 was maintainable against existing orders pertaining to the status quo of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while Section 151 of the C.P.C. offers inherent powers to courts, such powers cannot override explicit provisions within the CPC if a relevant procedure exists. The court further articulated that the necessity of expansion for operational viability is an aspect that lies within the owner's judgment.
Result: C.M.P. allowed; the impugned order is set aside, permitting the expansion requested by Defendant No.5.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of the c.m.p. regarding expansion of petrol pump. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. opposition to defendant no.5's expansion claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. assessment of necessity for expansion. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. guidelines on inherent powers under section 151 of c.p.c. (Para 12) |
| 5. permission granted for use of land pending trial. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Ms. M. Mishra, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. U.K. Samal, learned Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 and Mr. M.B. Smrutiranjan, learned Advocate for Opposite Parties 2 to 4.
2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (LR & LTV), Jajpur in C.M.A. No.9 of 2024 (arising out of C.S. No.259 of 2020), wherein the Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 15:20:29 prayer of Defendant No.5 to expand his petrol pump to the extent of 1650 sq. ft. in northern side over Plot No.687/1504 has been rejected.
3. Present Opposite Party No.1 is the Plaintiff, who filed C.S. No.259 of 2020 praying for partition over suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties include Plot No.687/1504. Present Petitioner is Defendant No.5 and Opposite Parties 2 to 4 are Defendants 2 to 4.
4. There is an interim order passed by the learned trial court dated 07.03.2022 directing all the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule properties. While said order of status quo is in operation in respect of the suit schedule properties, Defendant No.5 filed a petition under Section 151 of the C.P.C. in C.M.A. No.9 of 2024 praying for permission in his favour to expand his petrol pump situating over Plot No.687/1504 to the extent of 1650 sq. ft. towards northern side on the ground that 1650 sq. ft. to the southern side of the said Plot No.687/1504 was acquired by the State for expansion of the road and therefore the necessity arose on the part of the Defendant No.5 to expand his petrol pump to such extent towards the northern side. It is also contended by Defendant No.5 that BPCL authorities are insisting him of such expansion of such petrol pump. Defendant No.5 while praying for expansion of the petrol pump in the northern side to such extent has also undertaken not to claim any equity over such extended land of the petrol pump and will abide by the orders passed in the final decree proceeding.
5. The Plaintiff opposed the claim of the Defendant No.5 by submitting that such prayer for expansion of the petrol pump to the northern side is not at all necessary on the part of Defendant No.5 for the purpose of his business, rather being the same as part of joint family property, he is trying to grab such property in his favour pending the partition suit among the co-sharers.
6. It is submitted by Ms. M. Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of the present Petitioner (Defendant No.5) that learned trial court without considering the matter in proper perspective raised unnecessary objections doubting the existence of the petrol pump over the schedule land and further, when Defendant No.5 is undertaking not to claim any equity over such portion of land if allowed to be used by him, there is no reason to refuse his prayer.
7. Mr. Samal, learned counsel appearing for present Opposite Party No.1 (Plaintiff) submits that present prayer of Defendant No.5 under Section 151 of the C.P.C. is not at all maintainable in view of express provision under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. Mr. Samal contends that, the inherent power of the court under Section 151 of the C.P.C. cannot be exercised overriding any express provision in the C.P.C. and in the present case when there is an order of status quo passed by the learned trial court pending the suit, it is necessary on the part of the Defendant No.5, if aggrieved, to apply under Rule 4 of Order 39 C.P.C. seeking variance as sought by him in the present context. It is also submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that there being no necessity for expansion of th
