Court emphasized the importance of recognizing distinct legal claims in suits and the improper exercise of discretion in ordering analogous hearings, resulting in unjust delays.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 8th July, 2024 as at Annexure-12 passed in TR.P.(C) No.03 of 2024 by learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar and for a direction ensuring disposal of the suit in C.S. No. 85 of 2018 within a stipulated period.

2. Learned court below vide Annexure-12 directed withdrawal of the suit in C.S. No. 499 of 2016 from the court of learned 2ndAdditional Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar and transferred it to the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, (LR&LTV), Bhubaneswar to be tried and disposed of along with C.S. No. 85 of 2018, a decision, which is currently under challenge at the behest of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner is a registered society under the Society Registration Act and stated to be the affiliated Apex Body of all the private schools running in the State of Odisha and catering to the educational needs of the local residents and in order to expand its office, there was a need for a suitable accommodation, for which, it entered into an agreement dated 15th December, 2014 and in that connection, a double storey building standing over the suit schedule property was purchased in the year 2016, whereafter, the mutation RoR was obtained. A copy of the said RoR is at Annexure-1 series. It is pleaded on record that prior to such purchase, there were some tenants staying in the building including the opposite party with her family in a portion of the first floor of the same and was paying rent to the land owner but after the sale of the suit schedule property, the vendor ofthe petitioner issued a legal notice dated 29th December, 2014 to all the tenants to vacate the premises, in response to which, all of them vacated the tenanted houses in occupation except the opposite party, who along with her husband, stayed forcibly and instituted a suit in C.S. No. 7941 of 2015 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar. A copy of the plaint in the said suit is at Annexure-3. The further pleading is that in order to grab the property in question and occupy the same unlawfully, the opposite party filed the suit in C.S. No. 499 of 2016 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar against the original owners without impleading the petitioner demanding specific performance of a contract entered into in respect thereof and as per the plaint (Annexure-4) therein, the claim was that the husband of the opposite party had negotiated with the original owners to purchase the property for a consideration amount of Rs.1.5 crore and paid a sum of Rs.10 lac on 22nd October, 2015 as advance to one of the co- sharers named in the RoR. It is claimed by the petitioner that though the suit was filed in the year 2016, the trial has not commenced as yet and is pending at the stage of amendment of plaint and that apart, no copy of any such agreement was filed therein while seeking a decree of specific performance of contract in respect of the property involved and in the meantime, the original land owner lodged an F.I.R. against them registered as G.R. Case No. 2317 of 2017 alleging mischief vis-à- vis a plea of any such agreement to be in place. In fact, it is pleaded that the opposite party filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in C.S. No. 499 of 2016 and the same was allowed, challenging which, CMP No.1296 of 2022 was filed and the same was disposed of on 17th January, 2022 for a rehearing and disposal of the same according to law. Since such possession of the opposite party was unlawful, the petitioner instituted suit in C.S. No. 85 of 2018 against the opposite party and her husband for eviction and recovery of arrear rent etc. since the