KUMARBAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE core question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether an order of injunction passed against the State Government is binding against a person who is not a party in the suit and if so, in what Circumstances.

(2.) THE Appellant Kumarbar Sahoo assails the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar on 1 -5 -1989 in Misc. Case No. 31 of 1988 rejecting his application under Order 39, Rule 2A read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure to take appropriate action against the Estate Officer, Bhubaneswar for violating the order of injunction. The Appellant filed Title Suit No. 162 of 1986 against the Respondents, that is, the State of Orissa, represented through its Secretary, General Administration Department, the Collector, Puri and the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. In the said suit the Appellant filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 to restrain the Respondents not to disturb his peaceful possession over the suit land. The trial Court granted ad interim injunction by the order dated 30 -8 -1986 and the said order was made absolute on 21 -8 -1987. The Appellant alleged that in spite of the order of injunction the Estate Officer, Bhubaneswar filed the case bearing No. O.P.P. No. 70 of 1986 under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (for short 'the O.P.P. Act') for his eviction. On receiving notice in the said case the Petitioner filed the application under Order 39, Rule 2A to take action against him for violation of the order of injunction.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge accepted the above objection raised on behalf of the Respondents and dismissed the Appellant's application by the impugned order. It may be noted here that after filing the application under Order 39, Rule 2A the Appellant filed two other applications, one to direct the Director of Estates in the General Administration Department and the Addl. Land Officer in the said Department not to proceed with O.P.P. Case No. 70 of 1986 and another application to implead the Estate Officer as a party in the suit. It was stated before me that these applications, have not been disposed of yet.