Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ori) 551

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA, J.
Purnimasi Bhuyan - Petitioner
Versus
Sukhada Das and Ors. - Opposite Parties
C.M.P. No.896 of 2023
Decided On : 19-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vivekananda Jena, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate.

Jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct subordinate court errors unless manifest injustices occur; findings on temporary injunction based on ownership records must be respected pending full adjudication.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - Dismissal of Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed to quash the order rejecting prayer for temporary injunction in partition suit - The petitioner claims ancestral share but is contested based on recorded ownership of properties - The jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot correct all errors but only manifest injustices. (Paras 11, 13)

(B) Temporary Injunction - Grounds for granting - The courts find no merit to grant injunction as ownership recorded solely in the name of the O.P. No.1 - The finding on possession and ownership status kept open for final adjudication in the suit. (Paras 10, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed CMP against an order dismissing a temporary injunction in a partition suit, claiming ancestral rights over properties recorded exclusively in the name of the opposing party’s deceased husband.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found no jurisdictional errors warranting intervention and emphasized respect for findings of lower courts within their jurisdiction.

Issues: The main issue concerned the determination of rightful ownership and whether the suit properties are indeed ancestral, affecting the grant of a temporary injunction.

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner’s claims being under dispute must be properly adjudicated in the original suit, and mere ownership documentation denies the right to an injunction at this stage.

Result: CMP is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of the case and petitioner’s claim. (Para 1 , 2)
2. dismissal of injunction application by lower courts. (Para 3 , 5)
3. court’s supervisory jurisdiction under article 227. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. final order and directive for trial court. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner (appellant in F.A.O. No.31 of 2023 and petitioner in I.A. No.417/518 of 2022 arising out of C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Balasore) against the O.P. No.1 (respondent in FAO No.31 of 2023, O.P. in I.A. No.417/518 of 2022, defendant No.4 in the suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022) praying for quashing/setting aside the impugned judgment dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure-5) passed in F.A.O. No.31 of 2023 by the learned District Judge, Balasore.

2. The factual backgrounds of this CMP, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner being the plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore praying for partition of the suit properties described in Schedule ‘Kha’ of the plaint against the defendants stating in her plaint that, the suit properties are her ancestral properties, in which, she has a definite share, which is liable for partition.

In that suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022, she (plaintiff)filed I.A. No.417/518 of 2022 under O.39 R.1 & 2 of the CPC, 1908 against the defendant No.4 praying for restraining her (defendant No.4) temporarily from disturbing in the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit properties, not to enter into the suit properties, not to evict her (petitioner) from the suit properties, not to alienate the suit properties, and not to change the nature and character of the suit properties in any manner till the final disposal of the suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022 stating in her petition that, she (petitioner) is in peaceful possession over the suit properties as her ancestral properties, but the O.P. No.1 (defendant No.4) is trying to disturb in her peaceful possession and is trying to alienate the same to the third parties and she (O.P. No.1) is also trying to change the nature and character of the same. For which, the O.P. No.1 is to be injuncted temporarily till the final disposal of the suit.

To which, the O.P. No.1 (defendant No.4 in the suit)objected stating in her objection that, the suit properties have been recorded exclusively in the name of her deceased husband on the basis of the allotment of the same in his favour through registered partition deed No.8007 dated 04.06.1971. Therefore, the petitioner has no interest in the suit properties. She (O.P. No.1) is in possession over the suit properties after the death of her husband as his successor. Therefore, the prayer for temporary injunction of the petitioner against her (O.P. No.1) cannot be allowed. The same is liable to be dismissed.

3. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore dismissed to the I.A. No.417/518 of 2022 under O.39 R.1 & 2 of the petitioner (plaintiff) on dated 16.03.2023 on contest against the O.P. No.1 assigning the reasons that, “if the petitioner will be able to prove in the suit that, the suit properties are her ancestral properties, then the suit properties can be partitioned, but when the suit properties have been recorded exclusively in the name of the husband of the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.1 (defendant No.4) is in possession over the same after the death of her husband as his successor, then the petitioner is not entitled for temporary injunction against the O.P.No.1”

4. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned order dated 16.03.2023 passed in I.A. No.417/518 of 2022, the petitioner challenged the same preferring an appeal under O.43 R.1(r) of the CPC, 1908 vide F.A.O. No.31