ORDER

Order No. 01.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff in C.S. No.139 of 2026, pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar has approached this Court challenging order dated 19.02.2026, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the plaintiff’s application under Order-39, Rule-3 of the CPC.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the plaintiff filed the above noted suit with a prayer for partition. Along with a plaint the plaintiff filed an application under Order-39, Rule-1 & 2 of the CPC seeking injunctive relief as well as an application under Order-39, Rule-3 of the CPC for an ex-parte ad interim injunction order. Such application under Order-39, Rule-3 of the CPC was taken up on 19.02.2026 and the learned trial Court by virtue of the impugned order rejected the prayer made by the plaintiff under Order-39, Rule-3 of the CPC with the finding that there is no urgency in the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner while assailing the order dated 19.02.2026 contended before this Court that the suit property is a joint family property and that the Petitioner is having a share in the said property. He further contended that some of the co-sharers have already collected building materials and they are likely to start construction work over the entire suit plot. He further submitted that in the event the co-sharers are permitted to carry out the construction work, the plaintiff-Petitioner would be seriously prejudiced. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner tried to justify the urgency involved in the matter.

6. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order dated 19.02.2026, it appears that the learned trial Court has not elaborately discussed with regard to the absence of urgency in the application under Order-39, Rule-3 of the CPC. It further appears that although the application under Order-39, Rule-3 of the CPC was rejected, however, the learned trial Court has not given any definite finding as to why the Court was not inclined to pass any interim order. The impugned order dated 19.02.2026 reveals that the matter was posted to 18.03.2026. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner is not in a position to inform this Court with regard to the subsequent development in the matter. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present CMP application by directing the learned trial Court to take up the application under Order-39, Rule-3 of the CPC as expeditiously as possible and, after providing opportunity to both sides, the application be disposed of in a time bound manner preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order.

7. As an interim, this Court directs that the parties shall maintain status-quo over the suit scheduled land for a period of eight weeks. It is further made clear that the application of the Petitioner under Order-39, Rule-1 & 2 of the CPC shall be considered on its own merit without being influenced by the present order.

8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CMP application stands disposed of.