TAHAMIR KHAN Vs. COLLECTOR, PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

(2.) Judgment dtd. 24/4/2023 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nimapara in FAO No.07 of 2022 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby dismissing the appeal, learned appellate Court, confirmed order dtd. 11/4/2022 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nimapara in I.A. No.40 of 2021 (arising out of C.S. No.56 of 2021), rejecting an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

(3.) Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the suit has been filed for permanent injunction. It is submitted that the land was acquired by the State Government for construction of the canal. It stands recorded in the name of the Irrigation Department. But the possession is still with the Petitioner. When the Opposite Parties proceeded to construct the office of the Gram Panchayat over the suit land, the Petitioner filed the aforesaid suit. Since the Petitioner is likely to be evicted from the suit property, he also filed an application under I.A. No.40 of 2021 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Although, learned trial Court held that there is prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner and balance of convenience leans in his favour but refused to grant an ad interim order to injunction restraining the Opposite Parties from entering upon the suit land. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed FAO No.7 of 2022 which was also dismissed. While adjudicating the appeal, learned appellate Court erroneously held that the land stood recorded in the name of the Collector, Puri which is not correct.