The High Court · 2025
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:10:20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.1275 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Dukhishyam Pradhan …. -versus- Sri Sri Balikapileswar Mahadev, Bije Balikapileswar and others …. Petitioner Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss. 14. Thus, no reason is found to interfere with the impugned order of the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court. 15. Accordingly, the C.M.P. is dismissed. (B.P. Routray) Judge B.K. Barik/Secretary C.M.P. No.1275 of 2025 Page 6 of 6
Arguments
: Mr. H. Mohapatra, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate For O.P. Nos.1 to 5 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 15th October 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Notice on Opposite Party No.1 is treated sufficient as per the postal tracking report and it is stated that said Opposite Party No.1 is represented by Opposite Parties 2 to 5. 2. Heard Mr. H. Mohapatra, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 1 to 5. C.M.P. No.1275 of 2025 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:10:20 3. Present C.M.P. is directed against the order of status quo dated 28.03.2024 granted by the learned Civil Judge, Konark in I.A. No.34 of 2023 (arising out of C.S. No.39 of 2023) which was confirmed in F.A.O. No.23 of 2024 by the learned Additional District Judge, Nimapara vide order dated 11.02.2025. 4. Present Opposite Parties 1 to 5 are the Plaintiffs before the learned trial court, who filed the suit praying for the relief of permanent injunction against the Defendants (present Petitioner) in respect of suit schedule “A” property. 5. Admittedly, the suit schedule property is measuring area Ac.7.64 decimals out of Ac.83.50 decimals in Plot No.2058, Ac.9.54 decimals out of Ac.105.50 decimals in Plot No.3045 in Khata No.658 of mouza- Tarakara under Gop P.S. (now Ramachandi). Admittedly, the suit schedule “A’ property belongs to the State and recorded as such in the name of the State. 6. As per the claim of the Petitioner, the deity represented by its Marfatdar is having temple over the suit schedule “B” properties which is adjoining to suit schedule “A” properties. But it is claimed by the C.M.P. No.1275 of 2025 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:10:20 Plaintiffs that the deity is possessing suit schedule “A” properties since long with due permission from the State and now present Defendants are creating disturbances with their peaceful possession. Thus, they preferred the suit praying to restrain the Defendants from interfering their possession. 7. While challenging the interim order of status quo granted under Annexure-3 and 5 respectively, it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor without making the true owner of the property as a party is not maintainable. 8. Mr. H. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Plaintiffs deliberately did not array the State as a party in order to satisfy their interest of possession over the property. 9. Conversely, Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 to 5 (Plaintiffs) submits that the State is not required to be added as a party in the suit wherein no relief is claimed against the true owner. It is submitted that the right title of the suit schedule “A” property with the State is never disputed by the Plaintiffs and nonetheless, the Defendants being strangers have no right to create C.M.P. No.1275 of 2025 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:10:20 disturbance with the possession of the Plaintiffs in respect of their limited enjoyment for the purpose of the deity. It is stated by Mr. Mohanty that suit schedule “A” land is used by the deity and the local people for festive occasions. 10. The fact remains that, the State has sanctioned construction of a community center near deity’s temple over the suit schedule “A” land measuring Ac.0.10 decimals only. It reveals from Annexure-4 series that the land schedule for construction of the community center is in respect of Plot No.3045 measuring area Ac.0.10 decimals which is near to Plaintiffs’ temple. 11. As stated earlier, it is seen that the Defendants have no interest over the suit property as much as the possessory interest of the Plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule “A” property. When the State being the true owner of the property is not made a party to the suit whose right title over the property is never disputed by either party, it cannot be prima facie opined that the suit is not maintainable at the instance of the Plaintiffs for such limited reliefs against the Defendants. In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, it has been stated that, “where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful C.M.P. No.1275 of 2025 Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:10:20 possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.” In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff’s possession, the Plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and the Defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. 12. In the case at hand, the order of status quo as reveals from Annexure-3 & 5 reads as follows:- “The LA. be and same is allowed uncontested against the O.Ps. but without cost. Both parties are directed to maintain status quo over the suit schedule-A property till disposal of the suit.” xxx xxx xxx “The appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Konark is upheld.” C.M.P. No.1275 of 2025 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:10:20 13. In view of the aforesaid order where both parties are directed to maintain status quo over suit schedule “A” property, it is obvious that the order of status quo is binding on both the parties, and not against the State. At the same time looking to the status of the Defendants that they are complete strangers to the suit property when Plaintiffs claim to be in lawful possession of the property, the order of status quo granted by the learned trial court cannot be said against the interest of the true owner since it is limited to both the Plaintiffs and Defendants. It cannot also be opined that said order is in violation of the settled principles of