[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bhagirathi Choudhury And vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 18 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.69 of 2026
Bhagirathi Choudhury and ..... Petitioners
another
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Prapati Jati
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Smt. Sasmita Nayak, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
18.03.2026
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the
learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the CMP
application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Plaintiffs in C.S. No.10 of 2016 pending in the court of
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khandapara have
approached this Court by filing the present CMP application under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging the
order dated 05.01.2026 under Annexure-1 series passed in the
above noted suit.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended
that the Petitioners as Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and for
permanent injunction against the State-Opposite Parties as well as
some private Opposite Parties, who were arrayed as Defendants in
the suit. He further submitted that in the pending suit, an
application was filed under Section-80(2) of C.P.C. seeking
exemption from issuance of notice to the State-Opposite Parties
and to admit the suit to take up the application filed under
Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of C.P.C. He further contended that since the
Opposite Parties are causing damage to the suit scheduled land,
there was the urgency in taking up the suit as well as the
application for ad interim order. Hence, the above noted
application was filed seeking exemption from to compliance of the
provision under Section-80(2) of the C.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referring to the
impugned order dated 05.01.2026 at Annexure-1 series submitted
before this Court that the learned trial court erroneously came to a
conclusion that he did not find any urgency in the case against the
Government. Accordingly, the petition under Section-80(2) of
C.P.C. was rejected with a further direction to the Plaintiff to
comply with the mandatory provision of Section-80(2) of C.P.C.
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2026 at
Annexure-1 series, the Plaintiff-Petitioner has approached this
Court by filing the present CMP application.
7. On perusal of the CMP application, it appears that though
the same was filed on 12.01.2026 and was taken up on 20.01.2026,
no interim order was passed by this Court. Such fact reveals that
there is no urgency in the matter.
8. Accordingly, the present CMP application is disposed of by
granting liberty to the Petitioner to comply with the requirement of
Section-80(2) of the C.P.C. Subject to such compliance, the
learned trial court shall take up the application of the Petitioner
filed under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of C.P.C. and dispose of the same
as expeditiously as possible.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
