ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK CMP No.1438 of 2024 An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

***

Prabhat Kumar Baksi … Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

Swarnaprava Das & Others … Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Adisha Mohanty, Advocate.

.

For the Opposite Parties : None.

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 12.05.2026 :: Date of Judgment :12.05.2026

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed in I.A. No.13/2024 arising out of C.S. No.37/2024 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh and the impugned Judgment dated 24.09.2024 passed in F.A.O. No.08/2024 by the learned District Judge, Sundargarh.

2. The factual backgrounds of this Civil Misc. Petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing the same is that, the petitioner being the plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.37 of 2024 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh against the Opp. Parties arraying them as defendants praying for declaration of his title over the suit property and confirmation of his possession thereon.

In that suit vide C.S. No.37/2024, the plaintiff being the petitioner filed one I.A. vide I.A. No.13/2024 under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for restraining the Opp. Parties (defendants) temporarily from raising any construction over the suit property and from obstructing the passage of the petitioner or his tenants through the same till the final disposal of the suit vide C.S.

No.37/2024.

To which, the Opp. Parties (defendants) objected stating that, the suit property was allotted in their favour in the final decree of the partition suit vide T.S. No.6/102 of 1987 and after allotment, the same has already been mutated to their names. For which, the plaintiff has no interest and possession in the suit property. Therefore, the prayer for temporary injunction of the petitioner-plaintiff is to be refused.

3. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh dismissed to the I.A. No.13/2024 of the petitioner (plaintiff) on contest on dated 11.03.2024 assigning the reasons that, “the suit property was allotted in the final decree of the suit vide T.S. No.6/102 of 1987 in favour of the Opp. Parties and they (Opp. Parties) have mutated the same to their names. For which, prima facie title and possession of the suit property is in favour of the Opp. Party, but not in favour of the petitioner- plaintiff. So, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief i.e. temporary injunction against them (Opp. Parties) with further observations therein that, even if it is accepted that, a boundary wall is situated in between Plot Nos.32 and 3578, then, the petitioner has a scope to approach the road by demolishing a portion of boundary wall in between plot Nos.32 & 3578 without any requirement of the suit land for the same as passage.”

4. On being dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal of the I.A. No.13/2024 of the petitioner, he (petitioner) challenged the same preferring an Appeal vide F.A.O. No.8/2024 under Order 43, Rules 1(r) of the CPC, 1908 before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh being the appellant against the Opp. Parties arraying them (Opp.

Parties) as respondents.

After hearing from both the sides, the learned Appellate Court dismissed to that F.A.O No.08/2024 of the petitioner as per its Judgment dated 24.09.2024 confirming the dismissal of I.A. No.13 of 2024.

5. On being aggrieved with the above order dated 11.03.2024 passed in I.A. No.13 of 2024 by the Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh and the Judgment dated 24.09.2024 passed in F.A.O No.08/2024 by the learned District Judge, Sundargarh, the petitioner challenged the same by filing this CMP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 being the petitioner against the Opp.