DIPTI RANJAN SAHOO Vs. NALINI KUMARI SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against an order passed in FAO No. 5/22 of 2009/2008 by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Puri on 26-2-2010, by which the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Puri, while allowing the appeal filed by the Plaintiff directed the present Petitioners, who are Defendants in the suit, to vacate the disputed residential house and to remove the articles they have in the same within one month from the date of passing of the said order until the dispute as to the right, title and interest stand determined in the suit i.e. C.S. No. 148 of 2005. Facts giving rise to the appellate order are that the opposite party, who is the mother of the Petitioner No. 1, has filed a suit seeking relief for passing a decree for permanent injunction restraining the present Petitioners from entering into the disputed property, which is a residential house, and a decree for mandatory injunction directing the Defendants (writ Petitioners) to remove their articles from the said house, which has been described in the Schedule 'B' of the plaint.

(2.) An application under Order 39, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure along with an application for interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the Petitioner-Plaintiff against the opposite parties-Defendants to hear the injuntion application ex parte, being numbered as I.A. No. 109 of 2005. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nimapara in the said I.A. No. 109 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No. 148 of 2005 considering the urgency of the matter heard the Petitioner ex parte and passed an ad-interim ex parte order restraining the opposite parties-Defendants (writ Petitioners) from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner over the suit property till the date of filing of the objection by them in the interim application and issued a show cause notice calling upon them to show cause as to why the ad interim injunction as issued ex parte shall not be made absolute. Thereafter, the Plaintiff complied with the provisions under Order 39, Rule 3(a) and (b), Code of Civil Procedure Another interim application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, Code of Civil Procedure was filed, being CMA No. 74 of 2006, alleging violation of the order of injunction. The learned trial Court upon hearing the said application, on examination of the witnesses, came to the conclusion that if, at all, it is believed that the opposite parties were staying with the Petitioner in the said house much prior to the alleged occurrence, then it cannot be said that they violated the order of the Court and that no specific order was passed injuncting the opposite parties from entering into the house standing over the suit land for which the order is ambiguous in nature and rejected the said application filed by the Plaintiff. Against the said order, the Plaintiff preferred an appeal being FAO No. 5/22 of 2009/2008, which was disposed of by the impugned judgment passed on 26-2-2010 by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Puri. The learned appellate Court, considering the case of the parties and the materials on record came to the conclusion that the ad-interim order of injunction is not ambiguous in nature and that the Court has inherent power under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure to undo the wrong committed by the violators in respect of the injunction order. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed directing the writ Petitioners, who are Defendants, to vacate the disputed residential house and to remove the articles they have in the same within one month from the date of passing of the order.

(3.) The suit being between the mother in one hand and the son and daughter-in-law on the other, this Court made an attempt to settle the matter amicably by calling upon them to attend the Court personally. However, the parties did not agree with the same and ultimately the matter was taken up for final disposal.