NISHAMANI SAHOO Vs. ROHIT KUMAR PRUSTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the final order dtd. 21/1/2020 (Annexure-13) passed in F.A.O. No.12 of 2018/02 of 2019 arising out of I.A. No.27 of 2018 by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Dhenkanal.

(2.) The factual backgrounds of this CMP, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the opposite party in this CMP i.e. Rohit Kumar Prusty was the plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.93 of 2014 and the petitioner in this CMP i.e. Nishamani Sahoo along with two others i.e. Ajay Kumar Sahoo and Akshay Kumar Sahoo were the defendants in that suit vide C.S. No.93 of 2014 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Dhenkanal.

(3.) After hearing from both the sides, the Appellate Court i.e. learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Dhenkanal allowed that F.A.O. No.12 of 2018/02 of 2019 filed by the appellant/O.P./plaintiff on contest on dtd. 21/1/2020 and set aside the order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dhenkanal in I.A. No.27 of 2018 assigning the reasons that, due to the passing of an ex parte decree i.e. permanent injunction in C.S. No.93 of 2014 against the defendant No.1 (petitioner in I.A. No.27 of 2018) and in favour of the plaintiff (O.P. in I.A. No.27 of 2018), the petitioner in I.A. No.27 of 2018 has no prima facie case in her favour. Because, ex parte decree passed in favour of the O.P. is in force. For which, the impugned order i.e. temporary injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dhenkanal is not sustainable under law.