IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.1133 of 2024 (An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

---------------

Charulata Beura & Another ...… Petitioners -Versus-

Ranjana Pradhan & Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

_______________________________________________________

For Petitioners : Mr. K.M. Dhal , Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate ___________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

J U D G M E N T

24^th of October, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in C.S. No.992 of

2017 pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Cuttack, have filed this application seeking to challenge the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the said Court in refusing to decree the suit in terms of the settlement arrived between the parties by way of mediation.

2. The suit in question has been filed by the plaintiffs inter alia, seeking the following relief:-

“(A)That a decree declaring that the plaintiffs have right of user of the „A‟ schedule property as passage may be declared and theirsuch user over the same may be confirmed.

(B)That a decree for perpetual injunction may be passed against the defendants restraining them from raising any construction on any portion of the „A‟ schedule property and interfering with the user of the same as passage in any manner whatsoever. (C)That in case the defendants raise any construction over any portion of the „A‟ schedule property during the pendency of the suit a decree for mandatory injunction may be passed directing them to remove the obstruction within the time fixed by the Court failing which the obstruction may be removed through the process of the Court at the cost of the plaintiffs.

(D) That a decree for cost may be passed against the defendants.

(E) That the plaints may be granted such other relief or reliefs to which they may be found entitled under law and equity.”

3. Defendant-Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 are the only contesting parties. During pendency of the suit, the parties decided to settle the dispute amicably for which, they filed the petition under Section 89 of CPC on 12.12.2022 with prayer to refer the case to mediation. Such prayer of the parties was allowed and the suit was referred to one Santosh Kumar Mohanty, Mediator. After discussion in the mediation proceeding, the parties ultimately decided to resolve the dispute on 12.02.2024.

4. Both parties admitted that the disputed land being Government land, they have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit property and as such, they will not raise any claim thereon. It was further agreed that they shall not obstruct each other from using the suit property including the passage over the disputed plot and shall not construct any permanent structure. The mediation was thus successful and the mediator submitted his report before the trial Court.

5. Both parties prayed for acceptance of the report and to pass a decree in accordance therewith. The trial Court however, after perusing the report, though accepted the same but was not inclined to pass decree on the ground that a decree of declaration cannot be passed upon mere compromise/understanding entered into between the parties and that for such decree, positive evidence must be led.

6. Holding thus, the trial Court by the impugned order held that if the parties have resolved their dispute and do not want to litigate further, the plaintiffs are at liberty to resort to the provision under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC.

7. Heard Mr. K.M. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Petitioners and Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-Opposite Parties.

8. Mr. Dhal argues that the parties having resolved their dispute amicably through mediation and the trial Court having accepted the report of the Mediator, the suit ought to have been decreed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Mr. Dhal f