SOMANATH NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

(2.) Mr. S. Mantry, learned counsel or the petitioners stemming on paragraph-8 of the plaint in Civil Suit No.426 of 2023 filed before the court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khurda, submitted that it has been specifically pleaded that physical possession over the disputed property has been occupied by the petitioners (plaintiffs in the trial Court) since the year 1949 and it has been specifically pleaded with respect to hostile animus to the true owner. Mr. S. Mantry, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in the appeal being F.A.O. No.10 of 2024, an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.1 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioners under Order-39, Rule-1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction prohibiting the opposite parties, their agents and their staff from coming over the suit land and restraining them to create disturbances in the peaceful possession over the schedule land by the petitioners. The learned Appellate Court (First Addl. District Judge, Khurda) vide order dtd. 17/5/2024 has rejected the said petition in I.A. No.1 of 2024 considering that the said petition has been filed under Order-39, Rule-3 of C.P.C.

(3.) Mr. S. Mantry, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by way of memo dtd. 5/6/2024 he has placed on record certified copy of the order dtd. 20/5/2024 passed in the said F.A.O. and I.A, which is to the following effect:-