ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK R.S.A. No.273 of 2023 In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 C.P.C, 1908.

***

Gupta Power Infrastructure Limited, Represented through its Director, Jitendra Mohan Gupta, District- Khurda … Appellant.

-VERSUS-

Colonel Ajai Saxena & Others … Respondents R.S.A. No.278 of 2023 In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 C.P.C, 1908.

Gupta Power Infrastructure Limited, Represented through its Director, Jitendra Mohan Gupta, District- Khurda … Appellant.

-VERSUS-

Colonel Ajai Saxena & Others … Respondents Counsels appeared for the parties in both the appeals:

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Partha Mukherji, Advocate.

(for respondent No.1)

Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Adv.

(for respondent Nos.2 to 8).

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing : 06.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 19.02.2026

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

1. Since both these 2nd Appeals have arisen out of an analogous Judgment and Decree passed in R.F.A. No.7/2019 and R.F.A. No.9/2019 in respect of the Judgment and Decree passed in a suit and its counter claim vide C.S. No.68/2014, then, both these 2^nd Appeals are taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common Judgment.

2. The appellant-industry in both these 2nd Appeals was the sole plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.68/2014 and appellant before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.9/2019 and respondent No.1 in R.F.A. No.7/2019.

The respondents in these 2^nd Appeals were the defendants before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S.

No.68/2014 and respondents before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.9/2019.

The predecessor of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in R.F.A.

No.7/2019 was the defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.68/2014 and appellant in the

1st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.7/2019.

3. The suit of the plaintiff-industry vide C.S. No.68/2014 was a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff being an industry used to manufacture the cables and electrical conductors in the banner of Gupta Power. The plaintiff-industry had purchased the suit properties through thirteen numbers of sale deeds from several persons and formed the said purchased suit properties into a compact area and raised a laterite stone boundary wall surrounding the same and extended its factory/industry covering the suit properties. As such, the suit properties being the properties of the plaintiff-industry, the same are under the factory area of the plaintiff-industry. The plaintiff-industry is in possession over the suit properties. When the defendant No.1 claimed her title over the suit properties on the basis of a void sale deed, then, the plaintiff-industry approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide C.S. No.68/2014 against the defendant No.1 arraying her vendors as defendant Nos.2 to 8 praying for declaration of its right, title and interest over the suit properties and to confirm its possession thereon and to declare the sale deed bearing No.6388 dated 20.12.2010 executed by the defendant Nos.2 to 8 in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit properties as void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff-industry and to injunct the defendants permanently from interefering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-industry in the suit properties along with other reliefs, to which, the plaintiff-industry is entitled for. 4. Having been noticed from the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.68/2014, the defendants filed their written statements challenging the suit of the plaintiff-industry.

When the defendant No.1 filed her written statement independently, the defendant Nos.2 to 8 filed their written statement jointly.

In the written statement of the defendant No.1, she (defendant No.1) stated that, the suit properties were record