ORISSA HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON NIRANJAN SWAIN V/S ARCHI ROUT & OTHERS

CUTTACK, India, March 26 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on Feb. 23:

1. This I.A. has arisen out of the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.170/2019.

2. The petitioner (appellant in the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.170/2019) has filed this I.A. under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 against the Opp. Parties (respondent Nos.11(a), 11(b), 11(c), 12 and 13 of the 2 nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.170/2019) praying for restraining the Opp. Parties temporarily from interfering in their possession in the suit properties, and to restrain them (Opp. Parties) from alienating the suit properties to any person till the final disposal of the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.170/2019 stating in his petition that, he (petitioner) was the plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.31 of 1995 and in that suit vide C.S. No.31 of 1995, he had prayed for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties and to declare that, the sale deed No.887 dated 20.06.1996 executed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the defendant No.5 as illegal, void and inoperative and not binding upon him (plaintiff) being hit by Section 52 of the T.P. Act, 1882.

When the learned Trial Court dismissed to the suit vide C.S. No.31/1995 of the petitioner/plaintiff as per its Judgment and Decree dated 26.09.2016 and 05.10.2016 respectively assigning the reasons that,

"he (petitioner-plaintiff) failed to establish his right, title and interest over the suit properties and also refused to declare the sale deed vide R.S.D No.887 dated 20.06.1996 as void, illegal and inoperative"

then, he (petitioner/plaintiff) preferred 1st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.04 of 2017, but that R.F.A.No.04 of 2017 of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.

3. Then, he (petitioner/plaintiff) preferred the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A No.170/2019.

In the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.170/2019, the petitioner/plaintiff filed this I.A. No.1717 of 2025 under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, 1908 against the Opp. Parties praying for the aforesaid prayer i.e. temporary injunction.

4. The Opp. Parties have objected the same by filing their objection stating that, the learned Trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court in their respective Judgments and Decrees passed in C.S. No.31/1995 and R.F.A. No.04 of 2017 respectively, it has been held that, the petitioner/plaintiff/appellant has no right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties, for which, the petitioner has no prima facie case in his favour to get an order of temporary injunction against them (Opp. Parties). Therefore, the I.A. of the petitioner/plaintiff/appellant for temporary injunction is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have already heard for the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Opp. parties.

6. When, the learned First Appellate Court in Para No.9 of the Judgment and Decree passed in R.F.A. No.04/2017 has held that, the petitioner/plaintiff/appellant has failed to establish his title and possession over the suit properties and accepted the findings of the learned Trial Court relating to the same and when the petitioner has challenged the above Judgment and Decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court in R.F.A. No.04/2017 preferring the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.170/2019 and when this I.A. has arisen out of the 2 nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.170/2019 and when it is the duty of every Court to keep the suit properties as it is in status quo during the pendency of the litigation and when it is the settled propositions of law as per the ratio of the decisions between Sri Rabindra Kumar Mohanty Vs. Smt. Sujata Mohapatra & Others reported in 2015 (2) O.J.R. (297) & M/s. Graftek Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Sri Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije, Bhubaneswar reported in 1998 (II) O.L.R. 404 that, no irreparable loss can be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff/appellant, if there is alienation during the pendency of the suit/appeal, as the alienee would be bound by the decision in the Civil Suit, whether or not the purchasers are impleaded as parties to the suit/appeal, as the purchasers will be squarely governed by doctrine of lis pendens, for which, the so-called apprehension of the petitioner for restraining the Opp. Parties from alienating the suit properties during the pendency of the 2nd Appeal is baseless.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62Wo3b6T9XVfvAb2zcrhB5elXcNeQj89QzzA3ojNh8oJjR&caseno=RSA/170/2019&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010344482019&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.