[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Jagatsinghpur Public School vs Tahasildar on 11 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.1387 of 2025
Jagatsinghpur Public School, .... Petitioner
Jagatsinghpur
Mr. S.K. Samantaray, Advocate
-versus-
Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur .... Opp. Party
AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Order ORDER
No. 11.02.2026
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
the Tahasildar, Jagatsingpur - sole Opposite Party.
Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer
made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, the Plaintiff-Petitioner in
C.S. No.179 of 2012 has approached this Court
challenging the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in
F.A.O. No.61 of 2012 thereby dismissing the appeal
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:31:33
filed by the Plaintiff in its order dated 18.09.2012
passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Jagatsinghpur in I.A. No.180 of 2012 arising out of
C.S. No.179 of 2012.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset
contended that the Petitioner is a Public School
operating in the district of Jagatsinghpur. He further
submitted that a lot of students are prosecuting their
studies in the Plaintiff-School. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner at this juncture submitted that the dispute
arose with the Defendant-Opposite Party when a piece
of land was in occupation with the Plaintiff, was
claimed by the Defendant. Being aggrieved by such
conduct of the Defendant in its attempt for reclaiming
the land occupied by the Plaintiff -School, the Plaintiff
filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest
and for confirmation of the possession over the suit
schedule land.
5. In the pending suit, an application was filed
under Order - 39 Rules - 1 & 2 of the CPC by the
Plaintiff-Petitioner. Such application having been
rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Jagatsinghpur vide order dated 18.09.2012, the
Plaintiff-Petitioner preferred an appeal bearing F.A.O.
No.61 of 2012 before the learned Additional District
Judge, Jagatsinghpur. The said F.A.O. was dismissed
vide order dated 22.08.2025 thereby confirming the
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:31:33
order dated 18.09.2012. Being aggrieved by such
rejection of the applications, the Plaintiff-Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present CMP
application.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further
contended that the case of the Plaintiff as pleaded
before the learned trial Court satisfies all the three
ingredients required for grant of interim relief. He
emphatically argued that the Plaintiff-Institution has a
strong prima facie case and that they are in possession
over the suit scheduled land. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioner
contended that the learned trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court has committed illegality while rejecting
the prayers of the Plaintiff-School for grant of interim
relief under Order-39 Rules-1 & 2 of the CPC. In that
view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that the impugned order is unsustainable in
the eyes of law and as such the same is liable to be set
aside.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
contended that the prayer made in the present CMP
application by the Plaintiff-Petitioner is unsustainable
in the eyes of law. He further contended that the
Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the learned trial Court
with regard to the basic ingredients required for grant
of interim relief as such the learned trial Court rejected
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:31:33
the prayer of the Plaintiff-Petitioner for grant of
injunction. He also contended that such order passed
by the learned trial Court rejecting the prayer of the
Plaintiff-Petitioner for grant of interim relief has also
been confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, i.e.,
learned Additional District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in
F.A.O. No.61 of 2012 vide judgment dated
22.08.2025.The impugned injunction order having
been confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, such
order of rejection has attained finality. Therefore, this
Court in exercising of it power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India should not interfere with the
orders passed by the leaned trial Court as well as the
learned Appellate Court. In such view of the matter, he
contended that the application of the Plaintiff-
Petitioner being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by
learned counsel for both the parties, after careful
examination of the background facts, further taking
note of the fact that the suit is of the year 2012 and in
absence of any specific finding with regard to the
possession by either of the parties over the suit land,
this Court is the prima facie view that the learned trial
Court as well as the Appellate Court have not
committed any illegality in rejecting the prayers of the
Petitioner. However, taking into consideration the fact
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:31:33
that the suit is of the year 2012, this Court at the time
of admission of the present application had passed an
order of status quo in I.A. No.1394 of 2025 on
10.09.2025, this Court while disposing of the CMP
application, directs the learned trial Court to expedite
the trial of the suit keeping in view the fact that the
suit is of the year 2012 and make every endavour to
dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of six months from the date
of communication of this order. Since there is an
interim order passed at the time of admission of the
present application, this Court directs both the parties
to maintain status quo over the suit scheduled
property till disposal of the suit.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the
CMP application stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
amit
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
