Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. Madhusmita Samanta … v. – Anupama Singh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 741 of 2021 Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. Madhusmita Samanta …… Petitioner --------------- - Versus – Anupama Singh ...…. Opp. Party Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) For Opp. Party : M/s. A. Pal, J. Pal L. Dash, S. Pradhan & C. Mohapatra, Advocates : Mr. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate M/s. S.S. Bhuyan, D. Swain & S. Sahoo, Advocates _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 15.07.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Legal Reasoning
The petitioner is the defendant in C.S. No. 59 of 2021 pending before learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagatsinghpur. She seeks to challenge order dated 20.04.2021 passed by the Court below in I.A. No.32 of 2021 Page 1 of 8 filed by the plaintiff/opposite party allowing the said application by passing an order of restraint against the defendant. 2. The only facts relevant for deciding the present case is that the plaintiff has filed the aforementioned suit against the defendant for permanent injunction in respect of the suit land in which her dwelling house situates. The suit land has been described in the plaint schedule as Khata No.45, Plot No.376/432 measuring Ac.0.03 decimals of Mouza-Hariharpur, Jagatsinghpur. The suit house
Legal Reasoning
comprises a double-stored building containing ten rooms. The present defendant is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff, who married her son on 11.05.2003. The plaintiff claims that the suit property is her self-acquired property being recorded in her name. The defendant, being a quarrelsome lady forcibly entered into the house of the plaintiff on 18.01.2021 with some anti-social elements and damaged valuable household articles and also assaulted the plaintiff. She further threatened to disposess the plaintiff and her husband from the suit house by force. Hence, the suit. Page 2 of 8 3. After filing of the plaint the plaintiff also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. being I.A. No.32 of 2021 with prayer to pass an order of temporary injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit property. Initially, the Trial Court passed an ex parte ad interim order of injunction on 03.02.2021 against the defendant. The application was finally heard and disposed of on 20.04.2021 making the order of injunction absolute. The defendant carried the matter in appeal to the court of learned District Judge being FAO No. 12 of 2021. 4. After hearing both parties and on perusal of the pleadings and other materials on record, learned District Judge, vide judgment dated 12.08.2021 dismissed the appeal. Said order is impugned in the present writ petition. 5. Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. S. Sahoo for the defendant-opposite party. 6. Mr. A. Pal would argue that the 1st Appellate Court committed gross error in holding that the order passed by learned SDJM under Section 23 of the PWDV Act Page 3 of 8 in Misc. Case No. 25 of 2021 filed by the defendant does not relate to the suit property. He submits, reference to Plot No.376/504 under Khata No.208 mentioned in the order of learned SDJM is the same as the suit property being Khata No.45 Plot No. 376/432. Mr. Pal attempted to prove his contentions as above by filing the plot index showing Sabik- Hal co-relation of the suit property as also copies of certain RORs, which according to him prove that the suit property is not different from the property mentioned in the order of the learned SDJM. On such basis, Mr. Pal would argue that learned SDJM having already passed an order of residence in favour of the defendant in the said household, which is the dwelling house situated over the suit schedule property, no order of injunction could have been passed by the Trial Court much less confirmed by the 1st Appellant Court. 7. Mr. B. Bhuyan, on the other hand, forcefully argues that the order of learned SDJM in the PWDV case specifically relates to Plot No.376/504 of Khata No.208 whereas the plaint schedule mentions the suit property as Plot No.376/432 of Khata No.45. These are entirely distinct and separate properties. The plot index relied upon by Page 4 of 8 learned counsel for the defendant does not show the desired Sabik-Hal co-relation. Mr. Bhuyan therefore argues that the order passed by learned SDJM has got no application to the facts of the present case. 8. In view of the rival contentions, it is evident that the fate of the present case would turn on whether the order passed by learned S.D.J.M. in the PWDV case relates to the suit property or not. There is no dispute that the learned SDJM granted an order of protection in favour of the present defendant by passing the following order:- “The petitioner be protected from any kind of disturbance in her staying in the shared household if she is already staying there i.e. the matrimonial house of the petitioner situated at mouza Hariharpur over Khata No. 208, Plot No. 376/504 till further order. Further the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as their relatives are hereby by directed not to interfere or cause disturbance in the living of the petitioner in the shared household in any manner till further order. Furthermore, the petitioner the to Respondents through special messenger within 7 days hence and report compliance before this Court. issue notice is directed to
Decision
Supply free copy of the order to petitioner, protection Officer, Jagatsinghpur and to the IIC, Jagatsinghpur P.S. for necessary reference and this order. action Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.” implementation of towards (Emphasis added) Page 5 of 8 9. Thus, the order specifically relates to Plot No. 376/504 of Khata No.208 of Mouza-Hariharpur. It is to be noted that the schedule to the plaint, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-1 describes the suit property as follows:- decimals. Khata No. 45, Plot No. 376/432, Ac.0.03 10. It has been argued that both the aforementioned plots are in fact one and the same. The plot index has been filed by the defendant-petitioner to show the above co- relation, which is available on record. Perusal of the same however does not reveal so. Copies of four RORs have been filed. In the ROR published for Khata No.183/31, Plot No.376/432 is mentioned. It is also mentioned in the ROR that said khata was carved out of original Khata No.45, which was published in the name of Laxmidhar Sahoo. The ROR for plot No.208 relates to plot No. 376/504. Similarly Khata No. 183/32 was carved out of Khata No.152. Again, Khata No. 208 was carved out of Khata No.183/32, which contains Plot No.376/504, also measuring Ac.0.03 decimals. Thus, prima facie, there seems to be no co-relation between Page 6 of 8 plot Nos.376/432 and 376/504. Though Mr. Pal has argued forcefully that the original plot was 376 but nothing has been placed before this Court to support such finding. The defendant has heavily relied upon the averments made in the written statement filed by her before the trial court in this regard. In paragraph-7, it is stated that the description of the suit land as per schedule ‘A’ is not correct. In the current revenue record, Khata number of the suit land is 208 and Plot No.376/504. Significantly, in the counter claim, the defendant herself mentioned the schedule of the suit land as appertaining to Khata No.43, Plot No.376/432 Ac.0.03 decimals. This is contrary to the copies of ROR filed by her before this Court as referred to hereinbefore. That the suit Khata No.45 is actually 208 is not established. Furthermore, the suit plot described as 376/432 does not appear to have any relation with plot No.376/504. The 1st Appellate Court must therefore, be held to have rightly held that the order of learned S.D.J.M. in the PWDV case has no relation with the suit plot. Page 7 of 8 11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The CMP is dismissed. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 15th July, 2025/ B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno Page 8 of 8