Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 264 of 2024 (An appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.) Surendra Mohanty & Anr. …. Appellant (s) -versus- Smt. Laxmipriya Khuntia …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, Adv. Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-07.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Appellants have preferred the present appeal assailing the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar in I.A. No.1 of 2023 arising out RFA No.14 of 2023. I. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Facts
The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The Appellant No.1 is the owner of the suit plot over which a two storied building with an outhouse at its road side has been situated. Page 1 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 The Appellants kept a portion of first floor for their occupation and the remaining portion of the first floor along with the entire ground floor has been let out on monthly rent basis in favour of the different tenants including the husband of the respondent. The outhouse is the subject matter of the dispute in both the suit. (ii) The rent agreement executed between the Appellants and the husband of the respondent clearly reveals about the relationship between land lord and tenants. The last agreement was executed on 7.4.2010 for a monthly rent of Rs.2710/- with effect from August, 2010 which is liable to be enhanced at 10%. Since, the husband of the Respondent discontinued on payment of rent from January, 2011 the Appellants were compelled to issue notice determining the tenancy, but instead of vacating the same the respondent filed CS No. 88/2011 with the plea that the Appellants have made an agreement with her for sale of the suit land as well as the house standing thereof and to receive the payment on instalment basis. (iii) Both the suits were heard by the learned 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge Bhubaneswar. The learned 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge Bhubaneswar vide judgment dated 4.2.2023 decreed the CS No. 797/2011 in part thereby directing the defendants who is the husband of the present Respondent to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff i.e. Appellant No. 1 within 3 months, failing which he will be entitled to be recovered the same through the process of the court and the defendant is liable to pay Rs.2500/- from January 2011 till the date of actual payment. At the Page 2 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 same time CS No. 88/2011 filed by the Respondent as plaintiff was dismissed on contest without cost. (iv) Challenging the judgment and decree passed in CS No. 88/2011 the Appellants preferred RFA No. 14/2023 before the learned District Judge Khordha at Bhubaneswar and in the said RFA the Respondent filed IA No.1/2023 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the Appellants from interfering in the possession of the respondent and from creating any 3rd party interest till disposal of the appeal. II. 3. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
Legal Reasoning
(iii) The learned Appellate Court, having prima facie satisfied itself regarding the Respondent’s possession since 1999, has exercised its equitable and discretionary jurisdiction to preserve the lis in its present state pending adjudication of the appeal. (iv) The impugned order being a measure of preservative protection, occasions no prejudice to the Appellants, and its interference would disturb the existing equilibrium to the detriment of justice. IV. COURT’S RESEAONING: 5. In the backdrop of the rival contentions, the pivotal question that falls for adjudication is: Whether the learned First Appellate Court acted within the parameters of law in directing the parties to maintain status quo without recording findings on the indispensable ingredients for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC? (i) Upon careful scrutiny of the impugned order, this Court is constrained to observe that the learned First Appellate Court, while recording a bald satisfaction regarding the Respondent’s possession, has failed to assign any cogent reasoning on the presence or otherwise of the three indispensable conditions which govern the grant of interlocutory injunction. (ii) It is now trite, by a long line of precedents, that an injunction is an equitable relief, to be granted only when the applicant demonstrates: Page 5 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 (i) the existence of a prima facie case; (ii) that the balance of convenience tilts in his favour; and (iii) that he will suffer an irreparable injury if the relief is denied. (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719; Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727). (iii) The absence of a conscious and reasoned application of these principles vitiates the exercise of discretion. Judicial discretion, as has been oft reiterated, is not to be exercised at whim, but in accordance with reason and principle. Furthermore, the Respondent predicates her claim on an unregistered agreement for sale, which, by the explicit terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, does not, by itself, create any interest in or charge upon the property. Such an agreement confers a right in personam and not in rem. Until a decree for specific performance is obtained, the proposed vendee cannot claim possessory protection adverse to the lawful owner as enunciated in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam1, Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana2. The learned Trial Court, while dismissing the suit, had rendered a clear finding that the Respondent and her husband were in occupation as tenants and that the documents relied upon by her did not inspire confidence. Such findings, unless overturned in appeal, continue to operate with binding efficacy. In this backdrop, the Appellate Court’s grant of an omnibus order of status quo —
Arguments
(i) Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the Appellants has vehemently contended that the same suffers from patent illegality, perversity, and non-application of judicial mind. (ii) The learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the preliminary issue of maintainability of the injunction application at the instance of a prospective purchaser, who, in law, possesses no right in rem over the property but only a contractual right in personam. Consequently, no order of status quo could have been validly passed at her behest. (iii) The Court below has not adverted to, nor recorded any finding on, the three essential pre-requisites governing grant of interim injunction, viz., prima facie case, balance of convenience, and Page 3 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 irreparable injury — thereby vitiating the order by reason of non- consideration of settled principles. (iv) The learned Trial Court, in the judgment dated 04.02.2023, had rendered a clear finding that the Respondent and her husband were in occupation of the suit premises in the capacity of tenants, and that the contents of Exts.1 to 3 were inherently doubtful. Such findings having attained finality till reversed; the First Appellate Court could not have granted an interim protection on the contrary assumption (v) The alleged agreements for sale being unregistered documents, no right, title or interest in the immovable property stood transferred thereby, as per the mandate of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Hence, the Respondent could, at best, seek enforcement of a personal obligation through specific performance, but not protection of possession in the garb of injunction. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent has stoutly defended the impugned order, contending inter alia that: (i) The present appeal itself is not maintainable, as the Appellants were not the applicants before the learned Trial Court in I.A. No.01 of 2023, and the order of status quo does not cause them any demonstrable prejudice. (ii) The Appellants, being in dire financial exigency, had approached the Respondent for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and, in consideration thereof, had executed an agreement for sale of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-, part of Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14 which was acknowledged as received. The Respondent, since then, has been in peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land.