The High Court · 2025
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Oct-2025 17:39:56 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.890 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Sailabala Balabantaray @ Dalai …. Petitioner -versus- Sistala Sundaram & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S.C.Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Ms. D.Mahapatra, Advocate for O.P.1 to 4 Mr. D.R.Bhokta, Advocate for O.P.11 & 12 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 23rd October 2025 B.P. Routray, J.
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss has to be satisfied. 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 C.M.P. No.890 of 2025 Page 4 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Oct-2025 17:39:56 doing a particular thing. These three cardinal factors, that are deeply embedded in the Indian jurisprudence as well, are: 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. 7. In Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that; “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 C.M.P. No.890 of 2025 Page 5 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Oct-2025 17:39:56 to grant injunction and he needs protection from the 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.” 8. In the case at hand, the sale deed dated 11th March 1981 made in favour of the Plaintiff does not specify the boundary of the properties sold under the sale deed and it does not append any sketch map showing specific situation of the property. Since the entire plot is extending Ac.16.02 decimals out of which Ac.05.34 decimals is falling to the vendor of the Plaintiff and out of the same only Ac.03.70 decimals was purchased by the Plaintiff, the sale deed must contain exact location of the land sold under the sale deed. Therefore, when the identification of the land purchased by the Plaintiff is not specified in the sale deed, specific possession over the property of Plaintiff cannot be justified prima facie. It is further seen that admittedly the State has acquired Ac.01.12 decimals out of the land belonging to Gopinath, the vendor of the Plaintiff, from the same plot and he has also sold land measuring Ac.0.52 decimals from the same plot to one Kanchanbala Pattanaik in R.S.D. No.540 C.M.P. No.890 of 2025 Page 6 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Oct-2025 17:39:56 dated 17th May 1982. In such situation, when the same plot is found to have sold to different parties including acquisition by the State extending different patches, it must be specific on the part of the Plaintiff to identify the portion of land purchased by her in order to satisfy the possession thereof prima facie. It is important to mention here that the sale deed dated 11th March 1981 does not utter any word with regard to giving possession of the land purchased by the Plaintiff. Thus what is observed by the First Appellate Court that prima facie possession of the Plaintiff over the land purchased by her is not established, cannot be faulted with to interfere with. 9. The suit schedule-B property covers the entire patch of land measuring Ac.05.34 decimals in Sabak Plot No.40 and the Plaintiff has sought for temporary injunction in respect of the entire suit schedule-B properties without specifically mentioning his portion of land purchased. The learned Trial Court has also granted the order of status-quo in respect of entire suit schedule-B properties without specifying the extent of land purchased by the Plaintiff and without specifically mentioning the nature of status-quo to be maintained. As stated earlier, it is not the Plaintiff only who purchased the land from the entire patch of land covered under suit schedule-B property, but C.M.P. No.890 of 2025 Page 7 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Oct-2025 17:39:56 the State has acquired a major portion of the same and Ac.0.52 decimals was also purchased by another private party. Therefore, without finding specific possession of the Plaintiff in respect of such portion of the land out of ‘B’ schedule properties and ignoring the right of others who have admittedly purchased the lands validly according to the Plaintiff out of the same patch, the balance of convenience cannot lean in favour of the Plaintiff nor it would cause any irreparable loss to the Plaintiff in case the prayer for temporary injunction is refused. It is settled that the Courts while passing the order of status-quo must definitely mention the nature of status-quo to be maintained either in respect of possession or other situation. 10. In the case at hand, when the Plaintiff is not definite in identifying her portion of land purchased from the entire patch covered in suit schedule-B properties and does not satisfy prima facie possession over the same, hardly any case is made out in favour of the Plaintiff to get the order of temporary injunction in the form of status-quo or otherwise. As such, the order of the First Appellate Court, being found without any flaw, is confirmed hereby and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. It goes C.M.P. No.890 of 2025 Page 8 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Oct-2025 17:39:56 without saying that any such observations made in this order shall not affect the merits of contentions of the parties in the suit. 11.
Arguments
1. Heard Mr. S.C.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. D.Mahapatra, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 1 to 4 and Mr. D.R.Bhokta, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 11 & 12. C.M.P. No.890 of 2025 Page 1 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Oct-2025 17:39:56 2. Present CMP is directed against judgment dated 20th March 2025 of learned Additional District Judge, Nabarangpur passed in FAO No.05 of 2023, wherein the First Appellate Court has reversed the direction of learned Trial Court to maintain status-quo over suit schedule-B properties under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. 3. Present Petitioner is the Plaintiff, who filed C.S. No.45 of 2022 praying for partition in respect of suit schedule-B properties and to declare the registered sale deeds dated 18th March 2011 and 17th November 2017 in favour of Defendants No.23 to 31 as null and void, along with other consequential reliefs. The case of the Plaintiff is that he purchased Ac.03.70 decimals out of Ac.05.34 decimals in Sabak Plot No.40 from his vendor Gopinath Tripathy who purchased the entire Ac.5.34 decimals from Krushna Chandra Tripathy. It is further stated that Late Sadasiva Tripathy, Narayan Tripathy and Krushna Chandra Tripathy were three brothers who got 1/3rd share each over the entire property in Sabak Plot No.40 in Sabak Khata No.61 measuring Ac.16.02 decimals, and Krushna Ch.Tripathy sold his entire share extending Ac.5.34 decimals to Gopinath, the vendor of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff purchased the land measuring Ac.3.70 decimals by virtue of sale deed dated 11th March 1981. But C.M.P. No.890 of 2025 Page 2 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Oct-2025 17:39:56 subsequently the successors of Narayan Tripathy could manage to record some portions of said land fell into the share of Krushna Ch.Tripathy in their name and sold it to present Opposite Parties 1 to 4 and 11 & 12. Present Opposite Parties 1 to 4 are Defendants No.23, 24, 25 and 30, whereas present Opposite Parties 11 & 12 are Defendants No.28 & 29 in the suit. 4. The Plaintiff while pressing his case before the Trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, submitted that present Opposite Parties 1 to 4 and 11 & 12 by virtue of the illegal sale deed are creating disturbance with possession of the Plaintiff in respect of his property purchased. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that these Defendants who purchased their land from the successors of Narayan Tripathy could not gain any right title interest over the property allegedly purchased by them since the successors of Narayan Tripathy cannot claim any share fell under Krushna Chandra. According to the Plaintiff a share extending Ac.05.34 decimals under Sabak Plot No.40 is admittedly fell into the share of Krushna Chandra Tripathy exclusively to possess such extent of land which was subsequently sold to Gopinath, the vendor of the Plaintiff. C.M.P. No.890 of 2025 Page 3 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Oct-2025 17:39:56 5. It is submitted on behalf of the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 and 11 & 12 that the direction of the learned Trial Court to maintain status- quo over entire land extending Ac.5.34 decimals without having the right of the Plaintiff over the same entirely, is definitely an illegal order and further when the Plaintiff is unable to identify his extent of land measuring Ac.3.70 decimals with proper boundaries and the Plaintiff has failed to establish his possession prima facie thereon, the learned Trial Court has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order of status-quo in respect of entire land extending Ac.05.34 decimals. As such, the First Appellate Court has rightly interfered with the same to set aside the order of the Trial Court. 6. It is no more res-integra that in order to maintain temporary injunction in respect of the suit property three golden principles viz,
Decision
In the result, the CMP is dismissed. S.Das/Sr.Steno (B.P. Routray) Judge C.M.P. No.890 of 2025 Page 9 of 9