Page 1 of 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No. 10 OF 2023

Surendra Kumar Pradhan

….

Petitioner

Mr. Samvit Mohanty, Advocate

-versus-

The Secretary, Bhubaneswar

Development Authority, Bhubaneswar

and others

….

Opp. Parties

None

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

19.01.2023

01.

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

This CMP has been filed assailing the order dated 17^th

October, 2022 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Additional District

Judge, Bhubaneswar in F.A.O. No.115 of 2018, whereby learned

appellate Court dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the

order dated 28^th August, 2018 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Civil

Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar in I.A. No.115 of 2008

(arising out of C.S. No.86 of 2008), whereby an application under

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., was dismissed.

3.

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel, in course of argument,

submits that since the Petitioner has been evicted forcibly by putting

lock on the suit shop room, interest of justice will be best served, if

no third party interest is created in respect of the said shop room

during pendency of the suit. It is his submission that while

adjudicating I.A. No.159 of 2008 filed for restraining the Authorities

under the BDA from creating third party interest (in C.S. No.86 of

2008), learned trial Court vide order dated 3^rd February, 2009

directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit shop

// 2 //

Page 2 of 2

room as on that date. It was further clarified that the order shall

remain in force till disposal of I.A. No.115 of 2008.

4.

It is his submission that since I.A. No.115 of 2008 has

already been disposed of in the meantime, the Authorities under the

Bhubaneswar Development Authority are contemplating to create

third party interest in respect of the suit shop room. Hence, he prays

for a direction to the Opposite Parties, namely, the Authorities under

the Bhubaneswar Development Authority not to create any third

party interest in respect of the suit shop room till disposal of the suit.

5.

Although, the Opposite Party No.4 is represented by learned

counsel, none appears at the time of call.

6.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and on

perusal of the record, it appears that by order dated 3^rd February,

2009 passed in I.A. No.159 of 2008, both the parties were directed

to maintain status quo over the suit shop room. The arrangement

made was interim in nature and petition was posted to 17^th January,

2009 for hearing. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel

for the Petitioner that I.A. No.159 of 2009 is still pending for

adjudication.

7.

When the prayer with regard to creation of third party

interest during pendency of the suit is alive in I.A. No.159 of 2008,

this Court is not inclined to entertain the same in the CMP.

8.

In view of the above, the CMP is disposed of with an

observation that the Petitioner, if so advised, may move I.A. No.159

of 2008 for appropriate relief, if the same is still pending for

consideration.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

application.

(K.R. Mohapatra)

ms

Judge