KESHAB CHANDRA BEURA Vs. PUNANADA BEURA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kendrapara in I.A. No.25/74 (F.D.), wherein the learned trial court has rejected the application of the defendant no.12, petitioner herein, to drop the final decree proceeding.

(2.) This case has a chequered history. Plaintiffs-opposite party nos.1 to 3 instituted T.S. No.27 of 1974 (F.D.) for partition in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kendrapara. The suit having been decreed, the defendant no.1 filed First Appeal No.1 of 1977 before this Court. The first appeal was partly allowed on 12.1.1988. It was held that the properties described under Lot Nos.2,3,4,5,9 and 14 covered under Exts.A to F as well as Lot No.8 of schedule 'Kha' have to be excluded from the purview of partition, being the self-acquired properties of defendant no.1. Similarly the pump set described in schedule 'Ga' has to be excluded from the purview of partition, the same being held to be the self-acquired property of defendant no.1. The judgment and decree of the learned trial court to that extent was reversed and in respect of other properties were affirmed. Felt aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed AHO No.7 of 1988 before this Court, which was eventually dismissed on 22.09.1993. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiffs filed a petition before the court below to make the preliminary decree final. The defendant no.12, petitioner herein, filed an application for abatement of the final decree proceeding. It was stated that the consolidation operation in the area, wherein the land falls, has started. In view of Sec.51 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 ("OCH & PFL Act"), the final decree may be dropped. An ancillary prayer has been made to exclude Lot Nos.18 to 20 of the suit property from the purview of partition during final decree proceeding. Learned trial court has rejected the same.

(3.) Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that during pendency of the final decree proceeding, the suit land came under the purview of the consolidation operation. In view of the same, the final decree proceeding shall abate. He further submits that Lot Nos.18 to 20 should be excluded from the purview of partition.