CHANDRASEKHAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs have filed this writ application questioning the legality of the order dated 2.4.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in T.S.No. 51 of 2000 directing stay of further proceeding in the said suit in terms of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) AS it appears from the impugned order, an application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. was filed by the opposite party No. 5 and the plaintiff in T.S.No. 151 of 2000 for stay of further proceeding of both the suits till finalization of O.E.A. Appeal No. 8 of 2002. Earlier an order was passed in T.S.No. 51 of 2000 for analogous hearing with T.S.No. 151 of 2000. In view of the above, both the petitions were heard together and were disposed of by the common impugned order. In the application filed under Section 10 of the C.P.C. in T.S.No. 51 of 2000 it was contended that the disputed property under Khata No. 35 stood recorded in the name of Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri Marfat Mahanta Balaram Kot Matha and that the intermediary interest in the said property vested in the State Government under the provisions of the O.E.A.Act. After vesting, as the said property had not been settled in favour of Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri, O.E.A. Appeal No. 8 of 2002 has been filed on behalf of the Managing Committee of the Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri through its Administrator which is pending consideration in the Court of the Collector, Puri for final disposal. The plaintiff in T.S.No. 151 of 2000 claimed to have purchased the suit property from the Marfatdar Mahanta under a registered sale deed which is challenged as void and illegal. It was further averred in the petition that in view of pendency of the O.E.A.Appeal relating to the same property, the further proceeding in the suit was required to be stayed. In T.S.No. 151 of 2000 the opposite party No. 5 who is the plaintiff also filed a similar application on same grounds. The petitioners who are plaintiffs in T.S.No. 51 of 2000 and defendants in T.S.No. 151 of 2000 filed objection to both the petitions on the ground that the registered sale deed under which they have purchased the suit land is neither void nor illegal and that Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri did not have any interest in the said property. It was also their case that the suit property had been settled in Claim Case No. 1829 of 1974 in favour of Mahanta Rama Chandra Das of Balarama Kot Math and no appeal had been filed against the said settlement and there is nothing in the petitions filed under Section 10 of the C.P.C. to show who is the appellant in O.E.A.Appeal No. 8 of 2002 and therefore, such petition is liable to be rejected. The Trial Court on perusal of the records came to a conclusion that the subject matter of both the suits relates to Sabik Khata No. 35 appertaining to Sabik plot Nos. 334 and 335 which happened to be of intermediary interest and stood recorded in the name of Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri Marfat Mahanta Balaram Kot Math. Though according to opposite party No. 5, the suit property vested in the State Government under the provisions of O.E.A.Act, the same having not been settled in the name of Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri, the O.E.A.Appeal has been filed by the Managing Committee of Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri through its Administrator. It was also submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Sri Jagannath Temple Act, Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri has been made a party in the Civil Suit filed by the said opposite party in T.S.No. 151 of 2000. In course of hearing of the petition, the xerox copy of the order sheet in O.E.A. Case No. 310 of 1990 was filed by the Administrator of Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri as well as the order sheet in O.E.A. Appeal No. 8 of 2002 pending before the Collector, Puri relating to the suit properties have been filed on behalf of the defendant in T.S.No. 51 of 2000. On perusal of the said documents, the trial Court was of the view that after rejection of the claim petition in the aforesaid O.E.A.Case, an appeal has been filed and the appeal was pending consideration. This appeal has been filed by Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri Marfat Managing Committee against the present plaintiff and two others. The trial Court further observed that the suit property being the same in both the suits as well as the O.E.A.Appeal, it would be just and proper to stay further proceeding in both the suits till disposal of the appeal by the Collector and accordingly allowed the petition.

(3.) SHRI Ashok Mohanty, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 5 in support of the impugned order submitted that the property in dispute being the same before the Civil Court as well as the authority under the O.E.A.Act, unless further proceedings in both the suits are stayed till disposal of the O.E.A.Appeal, there may be contradictory findings by two different forums and in order to avoid any such eventuality, it was necessary for the Trial Court to stay further proceedings in both the suits. The learned Counsel also relied upon some decisions in support of his contention which shall be dealt with later on.