The court emphasized the necessity of enforcing interim orders and provided guidance on using police assistance for compliance in cases of ongoing violations.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.S.Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. K. Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and Mr. R.K. Swain, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3.

2. Present CMP is directed against order dated 7^th January 2025 (Annexure-4) passed in I.A.No.02 of 2024 (arising out of C.S. No.482 of 2017) by learned 4^th Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack, wherein the Trial Court upon consideration of the prayer of the Plaintiff with regard to violation of the interim order of status-quo has directed all the parties to maintain status-quo over the suit property in obedience to its earlier order dated 14^th August 2018.

3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner (Plaintiff) submits that initially an interim order dated 14^th August 2018 was passed by the Trial Court directing inter alia present Opposite Parties 1 & 2 (Defendants No.29 & 32) not to alienate the property in favour of third party along with the direction to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property. But said Defendants No.29 & 32 by violating the order of the Trial Court alienated part property in favour of present Opposite Party No.3 during pendency of the suit, who was subsequently arrayed as a party in the suit as Defendant No.42. Then Defendant No.42 started construction over the suit property purchased by him from Defendants No.29 & 32 thereby violating the order of status-quo granted by the Trial Court on 14^th August 2018.

Hence I.A. No.02 of 2024 was filed against Defendants No.29, 32 and 42 alleging violation of the order of status-quo against them irrespective of filing of another petition against Defendants No.29 & 32 for alienating the land violating the interim order of the Trial Court.

4. It is further submitted by Mr. Das that Opposite Party No.3 despite order of the Trial Court dated 7^th January 2025 (Annexure-4) continued with construction over the suit property even during pendency of the present CMP before this Court and finally appeared before this Court on 29^th July 2025 and undertook not to make any change in the status of suit land during operation of the interim order. It is admitted by all the parties present that after 29^th July 2025 Opposite Party No.3 is not making any further construction over the suit land.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the Opposite Party No.3 that admittedly he was not a party to the earlier interim direction of the Trial Court dated 14^th August 2018, and he being added as Defendant No.42 in the suit in the year 2024, such earlier interim order of the Trial Court directing the parties to maintain status-quo over the suit land is not binding on him. Therefore, it is submitted that the action of Opposite Party No.3 cannot be alleged with any violation of the interim order of the Trial Court dated 14^th August 2018.

6. It is true that the sale of part of suit property by Defendants No.29 & 32 in favour of Defendant No.42 during pendency of the suit with alleged violation of the interim order of the Trial Court is a different matter to be considered separately by the Trial Court and present CMP as well as present impugned order under Annexure-4 is unconnected to such alleged violation by Defendants No.29 & 32. Concerning the present dispute, i.e. with regard to alleged violation of order of status-quo directed by the Trial Court in the impugned order dated 7^th January 2025, it is clearly spelt therein that the parties are directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property during pendency of the suit in obedience to the order of the Trial Court dated 14^th August 2018.

7. Admittedly, Defendant No.42, who was added subsequently in the suit, was a pa