The court upheld that an injunction is not grantable when a petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy available in prior ongoing litigation concerning the same subject matter, emphasizing respect for conclusions of subordinate courts.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner against the Opposite Parties praying for quashing(setting aside) the impugned order dated 03.08.2022 (Annexure-4) passed in I.A. No.01 of 2022 arising out of C.S. No.1424 of 2022 by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Bhubaneswar and the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2023(Annexure-5) passed in FAO No.102 of 2022 by the learned 5^th Additional District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.

2. The factual backgrounds of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing the same is that, the petitioner being the plaintiff filed a suit vide C.S. No.1424 of 2022 in the court of learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar against the Opposite Parties arraying them as defendants praying for injuncting them(defendants) permanently from entering into the suit properties and to injuct them(defendants/Opposite Parties) from making construction thereon.

3. In that suit vide C.S. No.1424 of 2022, the petitioner(plaintiff) filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.01 of 2022 under Order- 39, Rule-1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 against the defendants arraying them(defendants) as Opposite Parties praying for restraining them(Opposite Parties) temporarily from entering into the suit properties and from making any construction on the suit properties till the final disposal of the suit vide C.S. No.1424 of 2022 stating that, the properties under Sabik Khata No.76 were recorded in 1962 settlement in the names of Nityananda Samal and Kshetrabasi Samal both are the sons of Late Narrotam Samal, Sarat Chandra Mangaraj son of Late Banchhanidhi Mangaraj, Kunja Bewa wife of Madan Samal and Bhagirathi Mangaraj son of Bidyadhar.

The suit properties under Hal Khata No.164 corresponds to Sabik Khata No.76 of 1962 settlement. The properties under Hal Khata No.164 were recorded in the names of the successors of the recorded tenants of 1962 settlement along with two purchasers thereof.

The Opposite Parties are the purchasers of the properties of Hal Khata No.164 from different share-holders. Although Opposite Party No.1 has purchased and recorded his name through mutation, but, his said purchase and mutation was not within the knowledge of the petitioner.

The Opposite Party No.1 has also taken power of attorney from Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 in respect of the suit properties.

The Opposite Party nos.2 to 4 are also the purchasers of the suit properties. They(Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4) have executed power of attorney in favour of the Opposite Party No.1 in respect of the suit properties. After managing to record the names of the Opposite Parties in respect of the suit properties in their favour, when they(Opposite Parties) tried to take possession of the suit properties forcefully and when, the Opposite Party No.1 cut big Mango tree from Plot No.308 and engaged huge machinery and labourers for construction of building on the suit properties and dug plinth and declared that, he along with the other Opposite Parties will make construction on the same, then, the petitioner filed the suit vide C.S. No.1424 of 2022 against the Opposite Parties praying for permanent injunction as well as I.A. for temporary injunction against the Opposite Parties in order to restrain the Opposite Parties temporarily from entering into the suit properties and also from making any construction on