The court reaffirmed that a prima facie case exists when fraud is alleged, necessitating preservation of status quo to avoid irreparable harm until trial completion.

Judgment :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Present CMP is directed against the order dated 11^th February 2025 of learned 3^rd Addl. District Judge, Balasore passed in FAO No.74 of 2024, wherein the First Appellate Court has reversed the order of status quo granted by the trial court in a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, CPC.

2. Heard Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Bhokta, learned counsel for the Opposite Party.

CMP No.315 of 2025 Page 1 of 10

3. The plaintiff, who is the present Petitioner, filed the suit praying for declaration of one Registered Gift Deed and three Sale Deeds as void, inoperative along with decree for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs.

4. The fact remains that the afore-stated Gift Deed and three Sale Deeds executed in the year 2022 and 2023 in favour of the sole defendant (present Opposite Party) were sought to be declared as void and inoperative by the plaintiff on the ground of fraud committed upon her. Her case is that she being the owner of the properties covered under such Registered Deeds was misrepresented to sign on some blank papers at the persuasion of one lawyer and she could not be aware of the fact of presentation of the same before the Registering Authority. The plaintiff have also taken some other grounds in support of her plea to declare those deeds void. In the petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC styled as I.A.No.48 of 2024 ( arising out of C.S.No.150/2010 of 2024-I), the plaintiff sought for temporary injunction against the defendant in respect of such properties. The learned trial court in her order dated 20^th May 2024 directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of such land scheduled in the plaint. Against the same, the defendant approached the First Appellate Court in FAO No.74 of 2024. The First Appellate Court upon hearing both parties reversed such order of the trial court dated 20^th May 2024 mainly on the ground that the plaintiff fails to make out any prima facie case in her favour and consequently there cannot be any irreparable loss found to the plaintiff. In the opinion of the First Appellate Court, no balance of convenience is leaning in favour of the plaintiff to grant such order of status quo in favour of the plaintiff.

5. Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the plaintiff-Petitioner submits that when the plaintiff is the seller and sating that fraud has been committed upon her in execution of those documents, the findings of the First Appellate Court contrary to the observations of the trial court are baseless and without any reason.

6. Conversely, Mr.Bhokta, learned counsel for the defendant- Opposite Party supports the impugned order of the First Appellate Court and submits that the story advanced by the plaintiff to declare such deeds as void is improbable and unbelievable. Without any justification on the part of the plaintiff to remain present before the Registering Authority and without disputing her signature to be not genuine, such plea advanced by the plaintiff against the Registered Deeds cannot be allowed to sustain to grant interim relief in favour of the plaintiff.

7. On the backdrop of such rival contentions as advanced by the parties, the present case involving grant of temporary injunction by way of order of status quo is to be looked into in satisfaction of principles settled for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. Those principles, stated as golden principles, are to look for prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. In Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh , (1992) 1 SCC 719, it is stated that;

“Undoubtedly, in a suit seeking to set aside the decr