Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP NO. 776 OF 2018

Manash Kumar Pattanaik and others

&.

Petitioners

Mr.Antaryami Swain, Advocate

-versus-

Srikanta Pattanaik and others

&.

Opp. Parties

Mr. N.P. Parija, Advocate

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

16.12.2021

14.

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

The Petitioners in this CMP seek to assail the order

dated 12^th April, 2018 passed by learned District Judge,

Jagatsinghpur in FAO No. 80 of 2017 confirming the order

dated 2^nd May, 2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Jagatsinghpur in I.A. No. 241 of 2017 (arising out of

C.S. No.299 of 2017).

3.

It is submitted by Mr. Swain, learned counsel that the

Petitioners are rightful purchaser of the land from the recorded

tenant, namely, Bhikari Nayak, who is none other than their

father, for consideration. After purchase, they got the land

mutated in their name. The father had sold the property to the

Petitioners in order to meet his legal necessity. In the instant

case, learned trial court as well as appellate court have

restrained the true owner of the property from the enjoying the

same. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable

to be set aside.

4.

It is submitted by Mr. Parija, learned counsel that the

sale deed in question is an outcome of fraud. The Petitioners by

// 2 //

Page 2 of 3

force and coercion have obtained the same as their father was a

police officer and is drawing a pension of Rs.30,000/-per month.

Hence, he had no legal necessity to sell the property. However,

the same is a matter of consideration in the suit. Learned trial

court as well as appellate court considering the matter from its

proper prospective have directed the parties to maintain status

over the suit property. Hence, no error has been committed in

passing the order of status quo. As such, this CMP is not

maintainable. However, since the suit is of the year, 2017, a

direction may be made for early disposal of the suit which will

bring to the end to the litigation.

5.

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned

counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record,

it appears that learned trial court as well as appellate court on

assessment of facts have directed the parties to maintain status

quo.

6.

In course of argument, Mr. Swain, learned counsel

submits that in view of the order of status quo, the Petitioners

are not in a position to make construction over the suit land.

However, Mr. Parija, learned counsel, on the other hand,

submits that the land in question situates abutting the main road.

If the Petitioners are allowed to make construction over the suit

land at this stage, it will obstruct the passage of Opposite

Parties, who will not have any access from the main road to

which Mr. Swain, learned counsel seriously objects.

7.

Since learned courts below taking into consideration the

facts and circumstances of the case and on assessment of the

materials on record have concurrently directed the parties to

maintain status quo over the suit property, I am not inclined to

// 3 //

Page 3 of 3

entertain the CMP in exercise of extra ordinary power under

Article 227 of the Constitution.

8.

Accordingly, this CMP being devoid of any merit stands

dismissed.

9.

However, parties may move the learned trial court for

early disposal of the suit.

(K.R. Mohapatra)

Judge

bks