IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK (An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

Purnimasi Bhuyan …. Petitioner -versus-

Sukhada Das and Ors. …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner - Mr. Vivekananda Jena, Advocate.

For Opposite Parties - Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate. (for O.P. No.1)

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :30.01.2026 :: Date of Judgment :19.02.2026 A.C. Behera, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner (appellant in F.A.O. No.31 of 2023 and petitioner in I.A. No.417/518 of 2022 arising out of C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Balasore) against the O.P. No.1 (respondent in FAO No.31 of 2023, O.P. in I.A. No.417/518 of 2022, defendant No.4 in the suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022) praying for quashing/setting aside the impugned judgment dated

27.07.2023 (Annexure-5) passed in F.A.O. No.31 of 2023 by the learned District Judge, Balasore.

2. The factual backgrounds of this CMP, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner being the plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore praying for partition of the suit properties described in Schedule ‘Kha’ of the plaint against the defendants stating in her plaint that, the suit properties are her ancestral properties, in which, she has a definite share, which is liable for partition.

In that suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022, she (plaintiff)

filed I.A. No.417/518 of 2022 under O.39 R.1 & 2 of the CPC, 1908 against the defendant No.4 praying for restraining her (defendant No.4) temporarily from disturbing in the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit properties, not to enter into the suit properties, not to evict her (petitioner) from the suit properties, not to alienate the suit properties, and not to change the nature and character of the suit properties in any manner till the final disposal of the suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022 stating in her petition that, she (petitioner) is in peaceful possession over the suit properties as her ancestral properties, but the O.P. No.1 (defendant No.4) is trying to disturb in her peaceful possession and is trying to alienate the same to the third parties and she (O.P. No.1) is also trying to change the nature and character of the same. For which, the O.P. No.1 is to be injuncted temporarily till the final disposal of the suit.

To which, the O.P. No.1 (defendant No.4 in the suit)

objected stating in her objection that, the suit properties have been recorded exclusively in the name of her deceased husband on the basis of the allotment of the same in his favour through registered partition deed No.8007 dated 04.06.1971. Therefore, the petitioner has no interest in the suit properties. She (O.P. No.1) is in possession over the suit properties after the death of her husband as his successor. Therefore, the prayer for temporary injunction of the petitioner against her (O.P. No.1) cannot be allowed. The same is liable to be dismissed.

3. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore dismissed to the I.A. No.417/518 of 2022 under O.39 R.1 & 2 of the petitioner (plaintiff) on dated 16.03.2023 on contest against the O.P. No.1 assigning the reasons that, “if the petitioner will be able to prove in the suit that, the suit properties are her ancestral properties, then the suit properties can be partitioned, but when the suit properties have been recorded exclusively in the name of the husband of the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.1 (defendant No.4) is in possession over the same after the death of her husband as his successor, then the petitioner is not entitled for temporary injunction against the O.P.

No.1”

4. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned