Advocates:
['PRAFULLA KUMAR RATH', '', 'A BEHERA', 'P NAYAK', 'S RATH', 'P K BASANTIA', 'S DAS', 'S MOHAPATRA', 'M/S D K MISHRA']

Page 1 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP NO. 921 OF 2022

Padmanav Kar

&.

Petitioner

Miss Shradha Das, Advocate

-versus-

Manaranjan Kar and others

&.

Opp. Parties

Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, Advocate

(For Opp. Party No.1)

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

07.12.2022

4.

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

This CMP has been filed assailing the order dated 17^th

August, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned District Judge,

Bhadrak in CMA No. 17 of 2022 (arising out of RFA No. 25 of

2017), whereby an application filed by the Petitioner under Section

151 C.P.C. seeking police help for implementation of the order of

status quo dated 3^rd March, 2022 has been rejected.

3.

Miss Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that

during pendency of the appeal, learned District Judge, Bhadrak

vide order dated 3^rd March, 2022 in I.A. No. 33 of 2020 taking into

consideration the rival claims of the parties directed the parties to

maintain status quo over the suit property till disposal of the

appeal. On being aware of the order of status quo, the Appellant-

Opposite Party No.1 tried to raise construction over the suit land

and put to new fence by encroaching upon the suit land in

occupation of the Petitioner-Respondent. Finding no other

alternative, the Petitioner had initially moved the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Bhadrak by filing a petition under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

// 2 //

Page 2 of 4

in Criminal Misc. Case No. 7 of 2022 and vide order dated 6^th

May, 2022, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhadrak directed to

promulgate the preliminary order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. After

the expiry of the said period, the Opposite Party No.1 attempted to

violate the order of status quo dated 3^rd March, 2022. Hence, the

Petitioner finding no other alternative filed an application under

Section 151 C.P.C. for the aforesaid relief. Relying upon the

decision of this Court in the case of Manoj Manjari Mohapatra

and another Sri Kapila @ Kapilendra Mohapatra and another,

reported in 2021 (II) ILR-CUT-230, Ms. Das, learned counsel for

the Petitioner submits that when the relief under Order XXXIX

Rule 2-A C.P.C. is not sufficient to protect the order of status quo

over the suit land and prevent the prejudice caused to the applicant,

the Court can entertain an application under Section 151 C.P.C. to

pass appropriate orders even by restoring the position at the time of

passing of the restraint order. She verily relied upon the

observation of this Court at paragraph-8 of the said judgment

which is as under:

<8. Thus, the Court has ample power to exercise its

discretion under Section 151 C.P.C., when the remedy

under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. will not be sufficient

to remedy the prejudice caused to the applicant. The

Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Chauhan 3

v- Harsh Bishnoi and another, reported in (2007) 12 SCC

201 in paragraphs- 16, 17 and 18 held as follows:

<16. The power of Section 151 to pass order of

injunction in the form of restoration of

possession of the code is not res integra now,

17. In Manohar vs. Hira Lal [AIR 1962 SC 527]

while dealing with the power of the Court to

pass orders for the ends of justice or to prevent

the abuse of the process of the Court, this Court

held that the courts have inherent jurisdiction to

issue temporary order of injunction in the

// 3 //

Page 3 of 4

circumstances which are not covered under the

provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil

Procedure. However, it was held by this Court in

the aforesaid decision that the inherent power

under Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure must be exercised only in exceptional

circumstances for which the Code lays down