[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Raj Kumar Agarwal vs I.F.G.L. Refractories Ltd on 28 November, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 02-Dec-2025 11:30:10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.894 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India)
Raj Kumar Agarwal ... Petitioner
-versus-
I.F.G.L. Refractories LTD.,
Sundargarh and another ... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr.S.Mishra, Advocate
( for O.P.No.1)
Mr.A.Patnaik, Advocate
(for O.P.No.2)
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
th
28 November, 2025
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Present CMP is directed against the judgment dated 12th March
2025 of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Rourkela passed in
FAO No.11/07 of 2023-24, wherein the interim order of status quo
granted by the learned trial court was reversed in favour of the
defendants.
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 02-Dec-2025 11:30:10
2. Heard Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and Mr.Pattnaik,
learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2.
3. Present Petitioner filed C.S. No.9 of 2023 praying for
permanent injunction against Defendants No.1 and 2 and their agents
or representatives from encroaching the suit land and disturbing the
possession of the plaintiff. Present Opposite Party No.1 is Defendant
No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 is Defendant No.2. The case of the
plaintiff is that he purchased the land from Gaya Mundari in the year
1949, but could not record his name in the ROR and taking advantage
of the same the names of LRs of the Gaya Mundari were recorded in
the consolidation ROR and subsequently the plaintiff took steps for
correction of his name in the ROR by approaching the consolidation
authority. Finally, the ROR was published in his name on 10th March
2022 by the Tahasildar, Lathikata. The mutation ROR in favour of the
plaintiff has been produced at Annexure-1 and the same reflects the
name of the Petitioner as the recorded tenant in respect of Plot No.813
under Khata No.398/653 in Mouza-Jhartarng in the district of
Sundargarh. The plaintiff thus claims that he is the owner of suit land
and prays such reliefs, as stated above, against the defendants.
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 02-Dec-2025 11:30:10
4. The defendants have appeared in the suit and their case is that
the suit land was acquired along with other lands by virtue of Section
4 (1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made in the
year 1968. After acquisition of the land by the State it was then
handed over to the IDCO (Defendant No.2) who then alienated the
same by way of lease to Defendant No.1 on 27th March 2023. By
virtue of the said lease granted in favour of Defendants No.1, i.e.
I.F.G.L. Refractories LTD, it was in possession of the land and started
construction of its factory.
5. The plaintiff filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 seeking
temporary injunction against the defendants pending the suit and the
learned trial court allowing said prayer directed the parties to maintain
status quo over the suit land. This was challenged by Defendant No.1
before the learned First Appellate Court in FAO No.11/07 of 2023-
24, wherein the learned First Appellate Court vide order dated 12th
March 2025 set aside the order of trial court dated 8th June 2023.
Hence, the plaintiff approached this Court in present CMP challenging
the order of the First Appellate Court.
6. Before delving into the facts, it needs to be mentioned at the
outset that to maintain the order of temporary injunction under
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 02-Dec-2025 11:30:10
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, the satisfaction of three fold test is the settled
principle. In State of Kerala v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 183,
it has been observed as follows:-
12. The globally acknowledged golden principles,
collectively known as "the triple-test", are followed by the
courts across the jurisdictions as the prerequisites before a
party can be mandatorily injuncted to do or to refrain from
doing a particular thing. These three cardinal factors, that are
deeply embedded in the Indian jurisprudence as well, are:
12.1. A "prima facie case", which necessitates that as per
the material placed on record, the plaintiff is likely to
succeed in the final determination of the case;
12.2. "Balance of convenience", such that the prejudice
likely to be caused to the plaintiff due to rejection of the
interim relief will be higher than the inconvenience that the
defendant may face if the relief is so granted; and
12.3. "Irreparable injury", which means that if the relief
is not granted, the plaintiff will face an irreversible injury
that cannot be compensated in monetary terms.
Xx .. xx .. xx ..
16. Coming to the first factor i.e. the prima facie case, the
plaintiff State has raised various substantive questions of
constitutional interpretation. Generally speaking, the phrase
"prima facie case" is not a term of art and it simply signifies
that at first sight the plaintiff has a strong case. According
to Webster's International Dictionary, "prima facie case"
means a case established by "prima facie evidence", which
in turn means the evidence that is sufficient in law to raise a
presumption of fact unless rebutted.
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 02-Dec-2025 11:30:10
7. As seen in the facts of the present case, the ROR stands
recorded in the name of the plaintiff and according to the claim of
plaintiff, he purchased the land from Gaya Mundari in 1949.
However, it is not disputed by the plaintiff that recording of the
ROR in his name only effected in the year 2022 after the order of
Revisional Consolidation Authority and prior to that the name of the
LRs of Gaya Mundari was there in the ROR in respect of the suit
land. Since the ROR published in the year 2022 clearly speaks the
name of the plaintiff, a prima facie case is definitely attracted in his
favour to substantiate his relief for temporary injunction.
8. As explained in Dalpat Kumar and another v. Prahlad Singh
and others, (1992) 1 SCC 719, the satisfaction of prima facie case
alone would not entitle the party to get the relief of temporary
injunction. Simultaneously, the party has to satisfy the balance of
convenience in his favour and most importantly, the fact of irreparable
loss. It is explained as follows;
"5. ... Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself
is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has
to satisfy that non-interference by the Court would result
in 'irreparable injury' to the party seeking relief and that
there is no other remedy available to the party except one
to grant injunction and he needs protection from the
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 02-Dec-2025 11:30:10
consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession.
Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must
be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but
means only that the injury must be a material one, namely,
one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of
damages."
9. Defendant No.1 in the present case claims his physical
possession over the property by starting construction of the boundary
wall and at this stage the plaintiff approached the learned trial court in
the suit. The claim of Defendant No.1 to get the land in his favour by
execution of Lease Deed dated 27th Mach 2023 from IDCO is also not
disputed by the IDCO (Defendant No.2). Section 6 (1) notification
dated 27th February 1969 under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 has
also been relied upon to disclose the fact that Plot No.312 under Sabik
Khata No.53 of Mouza-Jhartarng was acquired by the State for
industrial purpose.
10. In order to connect present suit land, the order of the Addl.
Consolidation Commissioner dated 11th March 2014, passed in
R.C.No.640 of 2014, filed by present plaintiff, is relied on by
Defendant No.1 to justify that said Sabik Plot No.312 in Sabik Khata
No.53 is corresponding to Major Settlement Plot No.377 & 383 under
Major Settlement Khata No.29 which then corresponds to
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 02-Dec-2025 11:30:10
Consolidation Khata No.353 and Plot No.813 measuring Ac.01.71
decimals of village Jhartarng during the consolidation operation. Thus
what is seen prima facie from the copy of the order of the
consolidation authorities that, present suit land is corresponding to
Sabik Khata No.53 and Sabik Plot No.312 that was acquired as per
Section 6(1) Notification dated 27th February 1969 under the Land
Acquisition Act.
11. Here, a dispute is raised on behalf of the plaintiff before this
Court that in absence of payment of compensation and notification
under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the notification
under Section 6(1) cannot be treated as final in the matter of
acquisition of land. However, such a plea was not taken by the
plaintiff in the plaint and it is explained that since the acquisition of
land, if any, was not within his knowledge the same could not be
stated in the plaint. However, this Court at this stage cannot give any
opinion on the finality of the process of acquisition of land in absence
of sufficient material produced to that effect. Of course, this is a
matter to be decided in course of the trial.
12. Looking for the balance of convenience, if Section 6 (1)
Notification is accepted on the part of the State, then a case is made
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 02-Dec-2025 11:30:10
out in favour of the claim of Defendants No.1 to have the possession
over the suit land and thus, it can safely be concluded that the
inconvenience would be more on the part of Defendants No.1, if any
interim injunction order is passed against him.
13. Further, in respect of irreparable loss, it is true that the plaintiff
does not claim any construction made by him over the suit land nor he
claims any agricultural activity thereof. According to him, though he
was in possession of the suit land but the same is a vacant piece of
land. On the other hand, it is the specific plea of Defendant No.1 that
after execution of the lease deed in his favour he started construction
thereon by raising boundary wall and also started some other
constructions subsequently. Thus, as seen prima facie, the loss would
be on the part of Defendant No.1, if the interim order of injunction
would be granted in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the balance of
convenience and irreparable loss are not leaning in favour of the
plaintiff but showing tilting heavy in favour of Defendant No.1. So
the order of status quo passed by learned trial court would not be
justified in the present circumstances of the case. As such, the First
Appellate Court has rightly set aside the order of the learned trial
court.
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 02-Dec-2025 11:30:10
14. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order of the
First Appellate Court is confirmed. Further, it is made clear that any
observations made in the impugned order by the appellate court or by
this Court in the present order, will not influence the rights and
contentions of the parties in the suit for final decision. However,
Defendant No.1 as submitted in his affidavit dated 1st September 2025
filed before this Court, shall not claim any equity over the suit
property or for any such constructions made therein during pendency
of the suit and shall file an undertaking to that effect before the
learned trial court.
15. The CMP is disposed of.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal, A.R.-cum-Sr.Seretary
