Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Nov-2025 16:03:30 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1255 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Prafulla Kumar Sahoo … Petitioner -versus- Pramila Sahoo and another … Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Mr.B.Bhuyan, Sr.Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr.B.Swain, Advocate (for O.P.No.1) CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 20th November, 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Present CMP is directed assailing the orders dated 21st December 2024 and 18th January 2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Salepur passed in I.A. No.182 of 2024 and CMA No. 248 of 2024 respectively, both arising out of C.S.No.127 of 2018, wherein learned trial court has directed to maintain status quo over the properties scheduled in the I.A. and subsequently to implement the said order of status quo with police help. CMP No.1255 of 2025 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Nov-2025 16:03:30 2. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel for the present Petitioner, who is defendant no.1 in the suit and Opposite Party in I.A.No.182 of 2024, in course of hearing confines his challenge to the order dated 18th January 2025 under Annexure-8 and submits that since said order under Annexure-8 is corollary to the earlier order of status quo passed under Annexure-5, the order under Annexure-5 may be read in reference to the present challenge. 3. Present Opposite Party being the plaintiff filed the suit praying for partition where preliminary decree was passed. Against the preliminary decree, RFA No.14 of 2023 was preferred by the defendant before the First Appellate Court and upon dismissal of the same, he challenged it in RSA No.314 of 2024 before this Court in terms of Section 100 of the CPC. 4. It is admitted at the Bar that RSA No.314 of 2024 filed before this Court is now pending adjudication. Vide order dated 28th November 2024 this Court has specifically directed in the interim to maintain status quo by the parties with regard to the suit property till 10th February 2025. It is submitted by Mr.Bhuyan that said interim order has been extended and still operating in the second appeal. CMP No.1255 of 2025 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Nov-2025 16:03:30 5. It is seen from Annexure-5 that despite the order of status quo was directed to both parties by this Court on 28th November 2024, the learned trial court without referring to said order of this Court has again passed the order of status quo on 21st December 2024 in respect of the suit property and directed to both parties to maintain status quo over the properties scheduled in the I.A. 6. Though it is not disputed at the Bar that the properties scheduled in the I.A. are covered in the suit schedule properties, but it is unclear from the submission of the parties that whether pendency of the second appeal in RSA No.314 of 2024 and consequent interim orders passed therein was brought to the knowledge of learned trial court while proceeding for final decree at the time of passing the status quo order. 7. As it is seen from the impugned order Annexure-8, it clearly reveals that such fact of pendency of the second appeal before this Court in RSA No.314 of 2024 and such interim orders passed on 28th November 2024 therein was brought to the knowledge of the learned trial court. Despite having such knowledge, the learned trial court proceeded in directing the local police to ensure implementation of the order of status quo dated 21st December 2024 of the trial court. It is CMP No.1255 of 2025 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Nov-2025 16:03:30 true that the order of status quo dated 21st December 2024 under Annexure-5 passed by the learned trial court is not contrary to the interim order of this Court dated 28th November 2024. Nevertheless, there is no necessity on the part of the learned trial court to pass such order of status quo after the same relief was granted earlier by the High Court in RSA No.314 of 2024. 8. It is admitted in course of hearing by both parties that the plaintiff has not filed any such petition under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC before the learned trial court till date alleging violation of the interim order of status quo passed either by the trial court or by this Court. It is fundamental that without alleging violation and seeking remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC, the further action for implementation of the interim order would not be maintainable in exercise of power under Section 151 of the CPC. The inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC cannot be exercised when there is an express procedure prescribed in the CPC as the remedy available to the parties. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275, while considering various earlier decisions, have delineated the guidelines for exercise of power under CMP No.1255 of 2025 Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Nov-2025 16:03:30 Section 151 of the C.P.C. It is observed that, “the power under Section 151 will have to be used with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court.” 10. In Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi and another, (2007) 12 SCC 201, it has been held that, “at the same time, it is also well settled that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the Court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order”. 11. In the case at hand, when no allegation of violation of the interim order is brought forward by the plaintiff, separately exercising the remedy available to him under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC, it would be unfair on the part of the Court to direct for implementation of the interim order of status quo through police. Because the question CMP No.1255 of 2025 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Nov-2025 16:03:30 of implementation of the order comes only in case it is alleged to be violated by the adverse party. If no allegation of violation is made out, then the question of implementation of the interim order does not arise. 12. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order under Annexure-8 is set aside with further direction to the parties to strictly adhere to the interim order of this Court dated 28th November 2024, whereby both parties have been directed to maintain status quo over the suit properties. However, it is open for either party to allege violation, if any, in terms of the prescribed provisions of the CPC and to seek appropriate relief thereof. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CMP is
Decision
disposed of. Judge ( B.P. Routray) C.R.Biswal, A.R.-cum-Sr.Seretary CMP No.1255 of 2025 Page 6 of 6