Orissa High Court
Case Details
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 Sundargarh and another LTD., … Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr.D.Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Parties :
Legal Reasoning
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. CMP No.894 of 2025 Page 4 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication 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 CMP No.894 of 2025 Page 5 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication 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 CMP No.894 of 2025 Page 6 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication 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 CMP No.894 of 2025 Page 7 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication 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. CMP No.894 of 2025 Page 8 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication 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.
Arguments
Mr.S.Mishra, Advocate ( for O.P.No.1) Mr.A.Patnaik, Advocate (for O.P.No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 28th 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. CMP No.894 of 2025 Page 1 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication 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. CMP No.894 of 2025 Page 2 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication 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 CMP No.894 of 2025 Page 3 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication 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:
Decision
15. The CMP is disposed of. Judge ( B.P. Routray) C.R.Biswal, A.R.-cum-Sr.Seretary CMP No.894 of 2025 Page 9 of 9