NIRANJAN KISHORE NANDA Vs. GOBINDA CHANDRA RATH

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Order dtd. 1/3/2023 (Annexure-7) passed by learned District Judge, Kendrapara in FAO No.13 of 2022 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby allowing the appeal learned appellate Court reversed the order dtd. 20/1/2022 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kendrapara in IA No.518 of 2021 (arising out of CS No.623 of 2021), dismissing an application under Order XXXIX Rules and 2 CPC.

(3.) Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner as Plaintiff filed CS No.118 of 2019 for permanent injunction in respect of Khata No.376 of Mouza Purusottampur in the district of Kendrapara. Along with plaint, the Petitioner also filed an application in IA No.103 of 2019 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which was allowed vide order dtd. 24/4/2019 (Annexure-3) directing both parties to maintain status quo over the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. The said order was not challenged and attained its finality. Subsequently, Opposite Parties filed CS No.623 of 2021 for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the aforesaid property which is pending in the same Court. Along with the plaint, the Opposite Parties also filed IA No.518 of 2021 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying, inter alia, to restrain the present Petitioner from dispossessing as well as alienating the suit property. The said IA was dismissed vide order dtd. 20/1/2022 under Annexure-6. Assailing the same, the Opposite Parties preferred FAO No.13 of 2022 and the impugned order has been passed. It is submitted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner that when an order of status quo is continuing in CS No.118 of 2019, learned appellate Court should not have passed the impugned order restraining both parties from making any alienation of the suit property and changing the nature and character of the suit land in any manner till disposal of the suit. The impugned order resulted in disparity and conflict in both the interim orders. As such, the appeal filed by the Opposite Parties should have been dismissed.