[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dinabandhu Das vs Tillatama Das And Others ..... Opposite ... on 15 April, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.603 of 2026
Dinabandhu Das ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Sidharth Mishra
-versus-
Tillatama Das and others ..... Opposite Parties
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
15.04.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer
made therein.
3. The Plaintiff in C.S. No.25 of 2026 and also the Petitioner
in I.A. No.20 of 2026, has approached this Court by filing the
present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India thereby challenging the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by
the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pattamundai in the above noted
case.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended
that the Petitioner as a Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and
perpetual injunction. Along with the plaint the Plaintiff also filed
an application under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 as well as the Rule-3
of the C.P.C. At the initial stage, the Plaintiff insisted for hearing
of the application under Order-39 Rule-3 of C.P.C. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that the
prayer of the Petitioner under Order-39 Rule-3 of C.P.C. was
rejected vide order dated 27.01.2026. Thereafter, the matter was
posted for hearing of the application under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2
of C.P.C after appearance of the Defendants. In the meantime,
one of the Defendants has already appeared.
5. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner
further contended that by virtue of order dated 06.03.2026, the
learned trial court has posted the matter to 07.07.2026 without
realising the urgency involved in the matter. While explaining
the urgency, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that one
of the co-sharers is making construction over suit scheduled land,
although the land has not been specifically carved out. He
further contended that such construction by one of the co-sharers
is bound to cause hardship and injustice to the other co-sharers at
the time of drawing of the final decree in the partition suit. On
such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
matter requires urgent intervention by this Court, failing which,
the Petitioner would be seriously prejudiced.
6. On perusal of the order dated 27.01.2026 at Annexure-4,
this Court observes that the application under Order-39 Rule-3 of
C.P.C. was taken up by the learned trial court and the same has
been rejected on the ground that the Plaintiff has failed to explain
the exceptional circumstances, for which, the learned trial court is
required to pass an ex parte injunction order. Moreover, it has
been specifically observed that the allegation of irreparable injury
is not sufficient as the same is not supported by any evidence.
Accordingly, notice was issued to the Defendants for
consideration of the application under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of
C.P.C. In view of the aforesaid finding of the learned trial court,
this Court is of the view that the order dated 27.01.2026 does not
call for any interference by this Court at this stage.
7. However, taking into consideration the order dated
06.03.2026 passed by the learned trial court thereby adjourning
the hearing of the injunction application to 07.07.2026, this Court
is of the view that the same is against the principles of law and
practice. When the Plaintiff has approached the court and filed a
suit along with an application for injunctive relief, prima facie
considering the urgency involved in the matter, the court should
have taken up the injunction application filed under Order-39
Rule-1 & 2 of C.P.C after valid service of notice on the
Defendants. Though notices have not been served on the
Defendants, the learned trial court should have made an
endeavour to ensure that the notices are served on all the
Defendants and should have taken care to ensure that the
application filed by the Plaintiff under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of
C.P.C. is disposed of as expeditiously as possible. This Court
further observes that adjourning the matter by several months is
bound to cause injustice to the Plaintiff.
8. Accordingly, while disposing of the CMP application,
Petitioner is granted liberty to approach the learned trial court for
modification of order dated 06.03.2026 at Annexure-4 and re-fix
a date for hearing of the application filed by the Plaintiff-
Petitioner under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of C.P.C. In such
eventuality, the learned trial court shall ensure that notices are
duly served on the Defendants and that a short date be fixed for
hearing of the application under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of C.P.C.
and the same be disposed of as expeditiously as possible by
providing an opportunity of hearing to both sides. It is further
directed that parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the
suit property for a period of two months.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the CMP is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
`
