Orissa High Court
Manmath Singh vs Niranjan Singh & Others on 13 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RSA No.217 of 2020
Manmath Singh .... Appellant
Ms.Maheswar Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Niranjan Singh & Others .... Respondents
Mr.Shibashis Mishra, AGA.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
13.04.2023
I.A. No.31 of 2023 : (A)
AND
Order No. I.A. No.87 of 2023 : (B)
11. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. The Interim Application as at (A) has been filed by the
Appellant whereas the other one as at (B) has been filed by the
Respondent No.1.
In both the Applications, the prayer is for modification of
the interim order dated 19.10.2022 passed in I.A. No.1020 of 2022.
The respective Applicant in these two Applications, while seeking
modification of the above order, have further sought the
permission to harvest the standing paddy crop grown over the suit
land and continue to cultivate the same and harvest till disposal of
this Second Appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, learned Counsel for the
Appellant (Defendant No.1) and Mr. Shibashis Mishra, learned
Counsel for the Respondent No.1(Plaintiff).
// 2 //
4. Keeping in view the submissions made, the record being
perused; it is seen that the Appellant (Defendant No.1), being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Kujang in RFA No.27 of 2017, has filed
the Appeal. The under section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Respondent No.1, as the Plaintiff, had filed the C.S. No.e-
1012-15 (220-2010) in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.
Division), Kujang for declaring the registered sale-deed dated
28.04.2009 as void and his absolute title over the land in lot no.2
of the schedule of the plaint with further prayer to direct the
Respondent No.4 (Defendant No.4) to execute a registered sale-
deed afresh in his favour and restrain the Respondents
(Defendants) from disposing him from the suit schedule land.
The suit, having been dismissed, there was the Appeal
under section-96 of the Code at the instance of the unsuccessful
Plaintiff (Respondent No.1). The First Appellate Court, having
allowed the Appeal, has set aside the judgment and decree passed
by the Trial Court in non-suiting the Plaintiff (Respondent No.1)
and has declared that the Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) has the right,
title, interest over the suit land. Accordingly, the Respondents
(Defendants), who were in possession of the suit land have been
directed to vacate within two months.
The documents i.e. the warrant issued by the Trial Court to
the bailiff and the report of the bailiff in connection with the
Execution Case No.03 of 2020 filed by the Respondent No.1
(Plaintiff) would show that in terms of the judgment and decree
passed by the First Appellate Court, the Respondent No.1 has been
delivered with the possession of the suit land on 12.10.2022 and
// 3 //
the bailiff has submitted his report as to the delivery of possession
of the suit land to the Plaintiff in presence of the witnesses in the
field.
When the Interim Application numbered as I.A. No.1020
of 2022 was moved on 19.10.2022, the delivery of possession of
the suit land to the Respondent No.1 pursuant to the judgment and
decree passed by the First Appellate Court in Execution Case
No.03 of 2020 having been effected a week before had not been
placed and brought to the notice of the Court. In that situation,
keeping in view that there is the rival claim as to possession; in
order to save the situation and preserve the subject matter, an order
of status-quo in respect of the suit property as it stood on that day
had been passed and the parties had accordingly been directed to
so maintain. However, it now reveals that the Respondent No.1
had already got the delivery of possession of the suit land in the
Execution Proceeding by the time, the order of status-quo was
passed. In view of such development taking place prior to the
passing of the order of status quo; this Court is of the view that it
would not be appropriate that the order of status-quo in respect of
the suit land should still continue to hold the field as the
Respondent No.1 having been placed in possession following the
legal process is enjoying the fruit of the decree.
For all the aforesaid, the order dated 19.10.2022 passed in
I.A. No.1020 of 2022 stands vacated and the Respondent No.1 is
permitted to harvest the standing crops and continue to cultivate
the suit land for the days to come, till disposal of the Appeal.
The Respondent No.1(Plaintiff), after harvesting the
standing crops, would however submit the account indicating the
// 4 //
quantity of paddy collected by such harvesting and the present
market price of the same as well as the expenses met. For the
future years to come, the Respondent No.1 every year by the end
of April would submit the detail accounts as to the income and
expenditure upon said harvesting before the Trial Court by sending
advance copy to the Appellant.
5. Both the I.As. are accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Basu
