NIRMAL KUMAR PANIGRAHI Vs. RAMAKANTA PANIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) PETITIONERS have challenged in this writ petition the order dated 22.4.2008 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhadrak in F.A.O. No.6 of 2008 setting aside the order dated 21.2.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in I.A. No.35 of 2008 and directing the parties to maintain status quo over the suit land till disposal of the original suit.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has examined the records and come to a specific finding that the plaintiff -petitioner has not satisfied the three principles to obtain an order of injunction. Therefore, it has rightly rejected the application for interim injunction. But the appellate Court has reversed the said finding. Before passing an order of status quo, the learned Addl. District Judge should have examined the materials available before him. From paragraph -3 of the impugned order passed by him, it appears that there was a partition of the suit property and parties are possessing their respective shares but he has failed to consider whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case to obtain an order of injunction and without discussing the same he has passed the order of status quo which needs to be reversed by this Court. He further submits that the defendants -petitioners will not claim any equity in case they will be allowed to raise construction over the disputed plot which is only in respect of Ac.0.06 decimals of land and much less than half of the suit area and they are entitled to half share in the suit property. In support of his contention he has cited a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Padmini Sekhar Deo and others v. Pankajini Thakur and another reported in 88 (1999) CLT 297.