The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.221 of 2024 Bhagabat Majhi @Bhagyadhar Majhi … Petitioner Mr. B.B. Mishra, Advocate -Versus- Manmohan Majhi & others … Opposite parties Mr. D. Dhal, Advocate (O.P. Nos.1 to 3) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 24.04.2025 Order No. 03. 1. 2. The matter is taken up through virtual mode.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 3. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order as at Annexure-8 passed in Civil Revision Petition No.15 of 2023 by learned District Judge, Cuttack and also the decision of learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in I.A. No.4 of 2023 arising out of C.S. No.700 of 2021 at Annexure-7 on the grounds stated therein. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been permitted to carry out renovation in respect of the structure standing over the case land by order dated 29th June, 2022 in I.A. No.2 of 2022 as at Annexure-4, whereafter, applied for electricity connection as has been obtained in the meantime. The further submission is that upon having received the connection for
Decision
electricity supply, I.A. No.4 of 2023 was filed, which was disposed of vide Annexure-7 and was rejected. Against the said rejection order Page 1 of 4 dated 9th October, 2023, as further submitted, the petitioner approached the learned District Judge, Cuttack in Civil Revision Petition No.15 of 2023, however, the same has been held as not maintainable since the order of the Court of first instance was while invoking powers under Section 151 of CPC. The contention of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel is that the suit is for partition and in so far as the possession of the case land is concerned, it is prima facie established and hence, learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack allowed renovation but declined to consider restoration of electricity supply leading to passing of the impugned order i.e. Annexure-8. Referring to the decisions in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vrs. Machado Brothers and others 2004 SAR Civil 404 and Apsarun Begum and others Vrs. Sk. Gulam Nabi and others 2014(I) CLR 1069, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submits that the revision is maintainable against the order passed under Section 151 CPC. In support of claiming electricity supply connection, the following decisions in Molay Kumar Acharya Vrs. Chairman-cum- Managing Director, W.B. State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & others AIR 2008 Calcutta 47 and Dilip (Dead) through L.Rs. Vrs Satish & others Manu/SC/0828/2022 is placed reliance on. With the case law cited, the contention is that the impugned order as at Annexure-7 in I.A. No.4 of 2023 and the decision in Civil Revision Petition No.15 of 2023 dated 29th January, 2024 cannot be sustained in law. 5. Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order as at Annexure-8 is as per and in accordance with law. The further submission is that in view of order of status quo vide I.A. Nos.1 of 2021 and 2 of 2022, learned Court below should not have allowed renovation but rightly declined the request for electricity supply at the instance of the petitioner and hence, the impugned order dated 9th October, 2023 as per Annexure-7 is to be affirmed. The further submission of Mr. Dhal, learned counsel is that unless and until the order of status quo is Page 2 of 4 modified or varied in terms of Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, any such direction for electricity connection with the suit land on the request of the petitioner is impermissible, therefore, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-7 is well justified. 6. In course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the order in I.A. No.2 of 2022 is under challenge at the behest of the opposite parties in FAO No.60 of 2022. It is fairly admitted by Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the opposite parties that the order in I.A. No.2 of 2022 has not been stayed in their favour. The contention of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that such renovation has been allowed upon disposal of I.A. No.2 of 2022 which amounts to variation of the order of status quo. In any case, it is contended that renovation since is allowed in respect of a temporary shed standing over the suit land, learned Court below ought to have allowed electricity connection but it has been denied. 7. The parties are the co-sharers and the suit is for partition. In so far as the order in revision is concerned, this Court is not inclined to consider the same but to confine the decision under challenge i.e. Annexure-7. The application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the petitioner seeking permission for electricity connection to the suit land and as against I.As. pressed into service by the respective parties, orders have been passed and disposed of with the direction to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property, but the electricity supply was declined. Upon considering the request for renovation, I.A. No.2 of 2022 was allowed by learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack. As stated earlier, the order therein has been challenged by the opposite parties in FAO No.60 of 2022 and the same is pending disposal. 8. Considering the facts narrated above and as there has been renovation being allowed in respect of the shed situate over the suit land, this Court is of the view that in absence of any interim order of Page 3 of 4 stay at the behest of the opposite parties in the FAO filed, it would not be proper to decline the electricity connection to the suit land, which has been claimed for and obtained in the meanwhile by the petitioner. Any such connection and the electricity supply to the land in question would be subject to the final decision in the suit for partition in respect of the schedule property. Having concluded so, the Court is of the ultimate view that for the order in I.A. No.2 of 2022 allowing renovation of the dilapidated house standing over the suit land and since electricity supply is demanded and though FAO No.60 of 2022 against the order in I.A. No.2 of 2022 is at the instance of the opposite parties pending without any order of restraint, such request should have been acceded to instead of denying the same. In other words, learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack, while entertaining I.A. No.04 of 2023 and disposing it of, ought to have allowed the petitioner to have the electricity supply to the suit land, a decision which would, in any case, be subject to the outcome of the suit. In other words, the impugned order as at Annexure-7 cannot be sustained, hence, to be followed with a consequential direction allowing the petitioner taking the electricity connection to the suit land subject to the rider stipulated herein above. Accordingly, it is ordered. 9. In the result, CMP stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 9th October, 2023 as at Annexure-7 in I.A. No.4 of 2023 is hereby set aside with the direction to the petitioner to take electricity supply and its connection to the suit land and to receive such directions in future upon disposal of the suit in C.S. No.700 of 2021. In the circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs. 10. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 26-Apr-2025 17:01:23 Alok Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Page 4 of 4