Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ori) 781

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA, J.
Rasbihari Pradhan - Petitioner
Versus
Major Kamal Kanta Das and others - Opposite Parties
C.M.P. No.775 of 2024
Decided On : 10-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. S. Sahoo, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. S.N. Subudhi, Advocate and Mr. M.K. Panda, Advocate.

Ambiguous status quo orders are unsustainable; courts must specify the status to be preserved to avoid legal uncertainties.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order-39, Rule-1 and 2 & Order-43, Rule-1(r) - The petitioner challenged orders directing parties to maintain status quo over suit properties. The courts failed to define the status or possession to be maintained, rendering the order ambiguous. The petition to set aside these orders was partially allowed, with directions for a speedy trial confirmed. (Paras 10-12)

(B) Status Quo Orders - Ambiguity - Such orders must specify the status to be preserved, as ambiguous status quo orders create uncertainty and multiplicity of litigation. (Para 10)

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. interlocutory application and appeal processes (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. ambiguity of status quo orders discussed (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. final orders and directions of the 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(defendant in the suit vide C.S. No.1825 of 2023) against the Opposite Parties(plaintiffs) praying for quashing(setting aside) the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 (Annexure-4) passed in I.A. No.01 of 2023 arising out of C.S. No.1825 of 2023 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar and the impugned judgment dated 25.06.2024(Annexure-6) passed in FAO No.17 of 2024 by the learned 3^rd Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar.

2. The factual backgrounds of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Opposite Parties being the plaintiffs filed a suit vide C.S. No.1825 of 2023 in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar against the petitioner arraying him as defendant praying for declaring the RSD Nos.1113100169/19 and 11131906637/19 as null and void and to injunct the defendant permanently restraining him from coming upon the suit land and to direct the defendant to demolish the illegal constructions raised on the suit schedule properties and to recover the possession of the suit schedule properties from the defendant.

3. In that suit vide C.S. No.1825 of 2023, the plaintiffs being the petitioners filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.01 of 2023 under Order-39, Rule-1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 against the defendant arraying him as Opposite Party praying for restraining him (Opposite Party/defendant) temporarily from changing the nature and character of the suit schedule properties and to restrain him(Opposite Party) from making any construction on the suit land till the final disposal of the suit stating that, they(plaintiffs) purchased the suit properties in the year 1995-96 from its original owners, but, the Opposite Party purchased the suit properties subsequently in the year 2019 from the legal heirs of the original owners knowing about the earlier sale made in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs, only in order to grab the suit properties with his ill intention, for which, they(plaintiffs) filed the I.A. No.01 of 2023 against the Opposite Party/defendant.

The Opposite Party/defendant challenged the same by filing objection taking his stands that, the suit properties along with other properties were partitioned between the recorded tenants on dated 07.11.1995 through a written partition, in which, the daughter of Nityananda Samal was allotted A.0.919 decimals. Chandradwaja son of Khetrabasi was allotted A.0.919 decimals. Sarat Mangaraj was allotted A.1.838 decimals. Iswar Mangaraj son of Kunja Bewa wife of Madan Samal was allotted A.1.838 decimals and rest A.1.838 decimals was allotted in favour of Maheswar Mangaraj.

On the basis of the said partition, respective parties got possession of their respective allotted lands. Successor of Maheswar Mangaraj, namely, Ipsita Mangaraj daughter of Janardan Mangaraj filed a suit for partition vide C.S. No.2565 of 2016 for allotment of her share from the share of Maheswar Mangaraj impleading all the successors of Maheswar Mangaraj as defendant. The said suit was disposed of on the basis of the compromise and as per such compromise, Hal Plot No.308 A.0.388 decimals under Hal Khata No.164 had fallen in her share.

The said Ipsita Mangaraj sold her said A.0.388 decimals to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Parties had also obtained power of attorney from the successors of Chanchala Samal. The Opposite Party has also purchased Hal Plot Nos.289, 302, 309 and 310 under Hal Khata No.164 from the successors in interest of Sarat Chandra Mangaraj, namely, Jayanta, Malayabanta, Sanata etc. and the Opp