In a contempt petition, the court dismissed the petitioner's prayer to set aside a lower court order that restrained him from entering suit land recorded in the plaintiff's name, finding no infirmity in the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CMP No. 548 of 2020
Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner in this CMP prays for a direction to set aside the order dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure-6) passed by learned District Judge, Deogarh in F.A.O (Misc. Appeal) No.1 of 2020 whereby, he confirmed the order dated 20.08.2020 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Deogarh in I.A. No.5 of 2020 (arising out of C.S. No.12 of 2020).
Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that C.S. No.12 of 2020 has been filled by the opposite party for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit schedule land and for confirmation of possession along with consequential relief. Alleging that the defendant-petitioner created disturbance in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, he filed I.A. No.5 of 2020 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., which was allowed vide order dated 07.08.2020 restraining the defendant (present petitioner) from entering upon the suit land and from erecting any construction over the same till disposal of the suit. Although, the petitioner preferred appeal FAO (Misc Appeal) No. 1 of 2020 assailing the same, but learned District Judge miserably failed to appreciate that the petitioner is in possession over the case land by constructing his residential house thereon and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this CMP has been filed.
2
It is further submitted by learned counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner-defendant is a land evacuee of Rengali Dam Project and is residing over the said land since 1984, which is recorded in the name of the Government. But, the plaintiff-opposite party suppressing the same managed to record the case land in his name and is trying to evict the petitioner from the suit land. It is his submission that learned Courts below failed to appreciate the same and directed the petitioner from entering upon the suit land over which the residential house is standing.
Taking into consideration the rival contention of the parties, both the Courts have come to a conclusion that the land stands recorded in the name of the opposite party (plaintiff) and the petitioner claims to have constructed his building over a piece of Government land, which cannot be the suit plot. In that view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, accordingly, the CMP being devoid of any merits stands dismissed.
Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
..………………………….
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
bct
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition praying for setting aside the lower courts' order restraining the petitioner from entering the suit land is sustainable.
Petitioner
Plaintiff
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
