MUKTIKANTA ROUTRAY Vs. PRAVAS SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the report of the Registry that neither A.D. nor brief has been received back as yet, service of notice on the Opposite Party is found to be sufficient. This matter is thus decided only hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. This Court here records the submission of Mr. A.Ku. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner that for the direction of this Court, proceeding U/o.39 rule 1 & 2 is already posted to today for hearing.

(2.) This C.M.P. involves a challenge to the order passed in consideration of an application U/o.39 Rule 3 of C.P.C.

(3.) A serious allegation is made that when the Court declined to entertain the application U/o.39 Rule 3 of C.P.C. and rejected the same, it has no authority to direct the parties to maintain status quo over the disputed property. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner attempted to satisfy such allegation reading through the order involved.