IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.1695 of 2024 (In the matter of application under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India).

Mangaraj Jena … Petitioner -versus-

Deputy Commissioner of … Opposite Parties Police, BBSR & Others For Petitioner : Mr. N. Panda, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K. Apat, Addl. PP CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:05.02.2025 G. Satapathy, J.

1. The petitioner by means of this CRLMP has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India by praying inter alia the following which is extracted in verbatim because the same is ambiguous:-

“xx xx xx direction may issue to the opposite party no 1 & 2 to take necessary action against the culprit as per the affair and as well as they direction of the LD civil court dated

04.07.2022 in IA No. 2/2022 in CS No. 489/2022 to maintain the status quo over the suit land.”

2. Heard, Mr. Niranjan Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. Mr. Apat submitted the instruction received from IIC, Nandankanan P.S.

3. It appears from the fact narrated in the application by the petitioner that he has filed a civil suit against Benudhar Jena and others before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.489 of 2022, wherein the petitioner preferred an application U/O. 39 Ruel-1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the CPC”) which is numbered as I.A. No.02 of 2022 and accordingly, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar passed order directing both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit scheduled land till disposal of the suit, but being aggrieved for violation of such injunction order, the petitioner has approached the said Civil Court in I.A. No.04 of 2022, wherein the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar directed the IIC, Nandankanan P.S. to implement the order passed by it in I.A. No.02 of 2022. However, praying to direct the OPs.1 & 2 to implement the said order, the present CRLMP has been filed.

4. A perusal of the aforesaid fact would go to indicate that the petitioner being aggrieved with disobedience of the injunction order passed by the learned Civil Judge, has approached the said Court seeking for a direction to the IIC, Nandankanan P.S. to implement the said order and accordingly, the said Court has passed such order, but being aggrieved with the non-implementation of such order passed by the learned Civil Judge, the petitioner has approached this Court. What should be the consequences of disobedience or breach of injunction has been outlined U/O 39 Rule-2A of the CPC. The aforesaid provision makes it very clear that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to proceed in the matter in case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 & 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was grated or the order so made, but instead of approaching for proper remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court seeking for a direction to the Police authority to register the FIR which is not the recourse available to the petitioner in terms of law.

5. Further, the IIC, Nandankanan P.S. in his written instruction has stated that the other side has not obeyed the order and they claimed to face the consequence as to be ordered by the learned Civil Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the written instruction and the provision of law, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction in the matter. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to approach the Court which has granted injunction in the suit.

6. In the result, the CRLMP stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 5^th day of February, 2025/S.Sasmal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMI