SMT. BANDANA MANGARAJ Vs. THE ARCHDIOCESE OF CUTTACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against an order dated 17.06.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 3 of 2013 arising out of C.S. No. 89 of 2011 in the matter of an application under Order-39,Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the said order the prayer of the plaintiff-appellant for issuance of a temporary injunction restraining the defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 2) from making any construction over the suit land or from creating any third party interest thereon and to maintain status quo as it was prior to 18.01.2011 has been rejected.

(2.) Facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal are as under:

(3.) When the matter stood thus, after two years in the second quarter of the year 2013, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code for issuance of temporary injunction against the respondents to make any construction over the suit area and to create any third party interest and maintain status quo ante as on 18.01,2011.The reasons for filing this petition is that the opposite party No. 2 having started the construction when would be going to sale the constructed portion of the house, there would be creation of third party interest which would ultimately stand on the way of grant of the relief in the suit and this is objected to by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated that the appellant has no prima facie case nor the balance of convenience leans in favour of such grant and in the facts and circumstances there arises no question of the appellant suffering irreparable loss in the event of refusal of non-grant of temporary injunction as prayed for. It is rather stated that balance of convenience leans in their favour and they would suffer irreparable injury and loss in the event of grant of such injunction. It is stated by the respondent No. 2 in clear terms that having paid of sum of Rs. 3.80 lakh's they have purchased the property and there has been due execution of the registered sale deed by the defendant No. 1 in their favour and they having been put in possession of the suit land are in peaceful enjoyment of the same. It is further stated that the plaintiff has been set up by her husband who is having Real Estate business and is in the habit of interfering like this for windfall gain.