TAPAN KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. SUDHANSUBALA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order 9.8.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in F.A.O. No. 60 of 2007 dismissing the same and confirming the order dated 30.6.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in Misc. Case No. 30 of 2002 (arising out of Title Suit No. 29 of 2002) in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the parties to maintain status quo over the suit land till disposal of the suit.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 1, Smt. Sudhansubala Sahu, had initially filed the aforesaid suit against the opposite party No. 2 Soubhagya Kumar Mishra for declaration of right, title and interest over the B -Schedule property and also for confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. Case of the plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 is that one Tilatama Samal was the rightful owner in respect of the suit Schedule property who derived her title by virtue of the order passed in O.E.A.Case No. 75 of 1959 -60 and Revision Case No. 3178 of 1973 -74 and Record -of -Right has been published in her name. The said Tilatama Samal expired leaving behind Alekha Sasmal @ Samal, Gurei Sasmai @ Samal and Rabindra Sasmal @ Samal as her legal heirs who succeeded to the suit property. The aforesaid three legal heirs sold the suit property to Jayant Kumar Jena and Kailash Chandra Mishra under two registered sale deeds dated 9.10.1995, whole in turn sold the same to the plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 under two sale deeds dated 7.3.2001 through their power of attorney Sasanka Sekhar Sahu. It is further case of the plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 that while he was continuing in possession of the aforesaid suit property, the opposite party No. 2 created disturbance in her possession and accordingly the suit was filed. In the said suit an application was filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. vide M.J.C. No. 30 of 2002 to grant temporary injunction restraining the opposite party No. 2 from demolishing the boundary wall and from evicting the opposite party No. 1 from the suit schedule property. An application under Order 30, Rule 3 C.P.C. was also filed vide Misc. Case No. 30 of 2002 for grant of ex parte ad -interim injunction and by order dated 15.1.2002 the Court passed an ex parte order of status quo, whereafter notice was served on the opposite party No. 2 sometime in December, 2006 and the said order was extended from time to time by the trial Court.

(3.) THE trial Court while disposing of the application for injunction recorded contention of the parties in paragraphs 1 to 8 and dealt with the documents filed by the parties in para -9 of the order. Upon analysis of the documents produced on behalf of both the parties, the trial Court came to conclusion that prima facie it was not able to ascertain as to who is the real owner. However, in the very same paragraph trial Court holding that the plaintiff has an arguable point came to a conclusion that prima facie the plaintiff has title over the property. The Court also held that the present petitioner will not suffer irreparable loss and will not be inconvenienced if an order of status quo is passed specifically on the ground that this Court having targeted the suit to be disposed of by end of October, 2007, and status quo order if allowed to continue for a period of four months will not cause any irreparable loss to the present petitioner. The appellate Court, as it appears from the judgment, has only repeated whatever stated by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.