AJIT KUMAR SAMANTARAY Vs. SOUBHAGYA KUMAR DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition under Order -47 Rule -1, C.P.C. is in respect of the judgment dated 20.02.2014 passed by this Court in F.A.O. No.373 of 2013.

(2.) IN an appeal against order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in I.A. No.327 of 2013, order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge was set aside and the appellant in the F.A.O., who is the opposite party No.1 in this review petition was permitted to proceed with further construction over a portion of the suit land that he has purchased from one of the brothers of present review petitioner.

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the observation made by this Court in the judgment dated 20.02.2014 that the present petitioner, who was the applicant in the I.A. before the learned Civil Judge, had not made any prayer for interim injunction restraining opposite party Nos.3 and 4 in the I.A. from entering into the property in dispute is a mistake which is apparent on the face of the record. But a copy of the I.A. has not been placed before this Court to show that actually the petitioner had made any prayer for interim injunction to restrain opposite party Nos.3 and 4 in the I.A. from entering into the suit land. The final order passed by the learned Civil Judge in the I.A. reflects that the I.A. under Order - 39 Rule -1 and 2, C.P.C. was with a prayer to restrain the opposite parties from alienating any portion of the suit schedule 'B' property or changing the nature and character of the suit property or demolishing the standing building till disposal of the suit. It is not reflected that there was any prayer to restrain the opposite parties from entering into the suit land. No material has been placed by the review -petitioner showing that in the I.A. there was any prayer to restrain the opposite parties from entering into the suit land. Operating portion passed in I.A. had directed the opposite parties not to raise any construction over the suit land or alienating any suit property till disposal of the suit. Therefore, it is not a case where the impugned judgment passed by this Court suffers from any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.