Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack

Date: 10-Sep-2025 18:18:13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No.928 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India)

….

Narendra Biswal Petitioner

-versus-

…

The Falcon Marine Export Limited Opposite Party

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate

For Opp. Party : Mr. D.P. Mohapatra, Advocate

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

9^th September, 2025

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

Mr. D.P. Mohapatra (Balasore), learned counsel for Opposite Party.

2. Present CMP is directed against impugned order dated 16^th April, 2025 passed in I.A. No.57/80 of 2025 (arising out of C.S. No.107/308 of 2025), wherein the learned trial court has directed for

appointment of Commissioner under Order 39, Rule 7 of the C.P.C.

Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 18:18:13

3. Present Petitioner who is the Plaintiff has filed the suit praying for declaration of the sale deeds as illegal, fraudulent and void and for recovery of possession along with consequential reliefs. I.A. No.57/80 of 2025 was filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 praying for temporary injunction against Defendant No.1. An order of status quo as passed by the trial court in the I.A. is operating over the suit schedule land pending final hearing of the I.A. In the meantime, Defendant No.1 filed a petition in the I.A. under Order 39 Rule 7 praying for appointment of pleader commissioner for inspection of the suit property with the questionnaire stated below:-

“As per the identification of the parties Commissioner will inspect the suit land (I.A. schedule land) and will report as to the nature and character of the suit land, manner of use and possession of the suit land, its length, breadth and location.”

4. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 16^th April, 2025 allowed the prayer of Defendant No.1 for appointment of Commissioner for inspection on the questionnaire presented by Defendant No.1 and the same is the subject matter of challenge in present CMP.

Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 18:18:13

5. The provisions contained in Order 39, Rule 7 empowers the court for detention, preservation or inspection of the suit property by authorizing any person in this regard to enter upon the land or building in question to get answer of such question that may arise in the subject matter of the suit.

As stated above, the Plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 is still pending and pending such application an interim order of status quo is operating in respect of the suit land. The power of the court to inspect the suit property is not restricted by any limitations if the occasion demands that such inspection is necessary for the purpose and for proper appreciation of the issues in dispute [Abdul Naim Khan and Another v. Sk. Kefaittullah and Others, 2013 (Supp.-I) OLR 253]. But at the same time the court must be aware that the order of inspection of suit property should not be directed for collecting evidence in favour of any party [Bijay Kumar Jena and Another v. Dussasan @ Surendra Khuntia and Others, 62 (1986) CLT 201].

6. In the case at hand, there is an interim order of status quo operating in respect of the suit land as submitted by both parties. It is not that any of the party is alleging violation of said interim order of Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 18:18:13 status quo by the other party. When none of the party is alleging violation of the interim order of status quo then the necessity arose for the court to inspect the property must be satisfactory. It is not that because the I.A. is pending and one of the party is praying for inspection of the suit land to know the manner of its use and possession thereof. What is submitted by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party that since the Plaint