HRUSHIKESH PANDA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In filing this Civil Miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 18.05.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) First Court, Cuttack in I.A.No.311 of 2012 arising out of C.S.No.138 of 2008 considering an application under Order 39 Rule 3,C.P.C and while rejecting the said application, passed an order of statusquo pending consideration of the I.A.

(2.) In assailing the impugned order, Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the trial Court rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 3, C.P.C, it had no jurisdiction to pass a further order of injunction in the nature of statusquo in a dismissal case and it is in this circumstance, Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel further contended that the impugned order is in excess of jurisdiction and should be interfered with by this Court.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Deo, learned counsel for the Opposite party Nos.1 to 6 opposing the submissions made by Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, raises a preliminary question of objection regarding maintainability of this proceeding referring to the decisions in the case between A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu - vrs- Chellappan and others, 2000 AIR(SC) 3032 as well as a decision of this Court in the case between Purna Chandra Digal -vrs- Tube Digal & Sila Digal and another,1992 1 CurCivC 483 and contended that in view of the provision for appeal against such order and keeping in view of Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is not maintainable and the matter should be dismissed as not maintainable.