SUKANTA CHANDRA SAHOO Vs. JAYAKRUSHNA ROUTRAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the petitioner in this civil revision against an appellate order refusing the prayer for temporary injunction.

(2.) Bai Bewa filed the suit for avoiding three sale-deeds of the years 1957 and 1960 claiming that the documents are invalid as she is a paradanashin and illiterate lady. The suit was decreed by the trial Court as well as in appeal. In the second appeal, however, the decree has been vacated and the suit has been remitted back for fresh hearing which has been posted to 23-11-1987 for hearing. Bai Bewa having died the petitioner has been substituted in her place.

(3.) The disputed lands originally belonged to Bai Bewa which have been transferred to the defendant. The disputed lands are claimed to be in actual possession of some persons claiming to be tenants who have filed applications under S. 36A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, against Bai Bewa for declaration of their occupancy right which are pending in view of the pendency of the suit involving title to the disputed lands. In the said proceeding opposite party No. 1 has entered appearance. In the proceedings under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, the name of the opposite party No. 1 has been recorded. In an earlier proceeding under S.145, Cr. P. C. between the applicants under S.36A of the O.L.R. Act and the defendant possession of those persons has been declared restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of those persons until they are evicted in due process of law. The said order was challenged unsuccessfully up to the stage of writ application where it has been held that the consolidation proceeding is the appropriate proceeding where the question of possession can be properly decided. During pendency of the second appeal an application was filed by the petitioner for prohibitory injunction against the defendant-opposite party No. 1. The Hon'ble Vacation Judge by order dt. 17-6-1987 granted interim injunction against the defendant and adjourned the matter for giving opportunity to the defendant to file objection. At that stage while the interim injunction matter had not been disposed of, the second appeal itself was disposed of. At the instance of the defendant, a proceeding under S.144, Cr. P. C. was filed against the applicants under S. 36A of the O.L.R. Act. However, the proceeding has now come to an end.