Dismissed

Laxmipriya Sahu v. Amulya Kumar Sahu

Orissa HC31 Mar 2021CMP/127/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC, the High Court did not enter into the merits of the underlying partition suit but held that any alienation or construction on the disputed 'A-ii' schedule of property during the suit's pendency must remain subject to the suit's result.

What did the court decide?

The court directed that any alienation of the disputed property must be subject to the result of the underlying civil suit.

Laxmipriya Sahu Vs Amulya Kumar Sahu — Partition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

CMP No. 127 of 2021

¶2

31.03.2021 Heard Mr.Amit Prasad Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Samir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

¶3

Petitioners in this CMP seek to assail the order dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned District Judge, Bargarh in FAO No.02 of 2021, whereby he confirmed the order dated 18.01.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bargarh arising out of CS No.72 of 2015.

¶4

The opposite parties as plaintiffs, filed CS No.72 of 2015 for partition of the suit schedule ‘A’ property and directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.33,96,090.85 to each of the plaintiffs towards their share from the compensation amount after deducting an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs which each of the petitioners have already received and for other consequential reliefs.

¶5

3.1 During pendency of the Civil Suit, the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed an IA No.34 of 2018 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC with a prayer to restrain the defendants-opposite parties from making any construction over the suit land and from making any deed of transfer during pendency of the suit. Learned trial Court

¶6

¶7

considering the rival contentions of the parties, allowed the said IA against which the defendants/petitioners filed FAO No.02 of 2021 before the learned District Judge, Bargarh, who vide his order dated 01.03.2021, while confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court, reversed the order of injunction in respect of ‘A-ii’ schedule of land to the plaint holding it to be the self-acquired property of the defendants/opposite parties.

¶8

Although several contentions have been raised by learned counsel for the parties, this Court without entering into merits of such submissions made by learned counsels feels it proper to hold that alienation of ‘A-ii’ schedule of property or any portion thereof or any construction made thereon, if any, made during pendency of suit shall be subject to the result of the suit. The deed of conveyance shall contain a Clause to the effect that the alienation shall be subject to the result of the CS No.72 of 2015 and no equity shall be claimed in that respect.

¶9

4.1 It is further held that learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observation made by learned appellate court or by this Court, while adjudicating the suit.

¶10

¶11

With the aforesaid observation, the CMP is disposed of.

¶12

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

¶13

……..…………………….

¶14

K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.

¶15

Laxmipriya Sahu v. Amulya Kumar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmipriya Sahu v. Amulya Kumar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srikar Patra Vs Gopinath Dev

Purna Chandra Barik Vs Uma @ Bhamamani Jena

Sudarsan Nayak Vs Collector,Cuttack

Mahant Sri Srinibas Ramanuj Dash Vs State of Odisha

Ankura Ch. Nayak Vs Addl. Commnr., S and C, Balasore

Uma Swain Vs Chintamani Swain