The High Court of Orissa disposed of a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Section 151 C.P.C. filed to quash proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C.
The civil revision petition was dismissed with a direction to issue certified copy of the 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP NO. 1057 OF 2022
Ram Pratap Kheria and others
…. Petitioners
Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Advocate
-versus-
…. Ranjan Kumar Pradhan and another Opp. Parties
Miss Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
08.12.2022
proceeding initiated under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. against them.
the said petition to maintain status quo over the suit property. Subsequently, on 18th February, 2006, an application Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. (I.A. No.57 of 2006) was filed impleading the Petitioner No.1 as Opposite Party No.2 to the said
Page 1 of 5
// 2 //
petition. He further submits that since the Petitioner No.1 was not a party to the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., the order of status quo passed by learned trial Court is not binding on him. However, learned trial Court without appreciating the same continued with the proceeding under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. During pendency of the said proceeding, this Court in CMP No. 301 of 2018 disposed of on 2nd May, 2018 ( Ghanashyam Pradhan and others –v- Ram Pratap Kheria , reported in 2018 (I) ILR CUT-936) held as under:
“16. For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the application stands dismissed.
The executing court is directed to take all such effective steps as provided in law to see that the execution proceeding stands culminated with fruitful execution of the decree in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of June, 2018 under a compliance report to this Court by the end of July, 2018.”
Page 2 of 5
// 3 //
Petitioners, the proceeding under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. against them is not maintainable. Continuance of the proceeding after the direction of this Court is a sheer abuse of the process of Court. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect and dismissed the petition. Hence, this CMP has been filed. 5. Miss Naidu, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that after the order of status quo was passed directing the parties to maintain status quo in the petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., the Opposite Party therein, namely, Sarat Chandra Behera and others along with some anti-socials forcibly entered into the premises of the Opposite Parties and demolished the boundary wall and some portions of the residential house of Opposite Parties and put the Petitioners in possession. Hence, the Petitioners are equally liable for violation of the order of status quo even though the Petitioner No.1 was not a party to the petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The contention raised by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioners is subject to appreciation of the Court taking into consideration the materials available on record. The petition under Section 151 C.P.C. was filed by the Petitioners at a stage when the proceeding under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. was posted for cross-examination of O.P.W.1, namely, present Petitioner No.1. Thus, dismissal of the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. at this stage will certainly prejudice the Opposite Parties. Hence, she prays for dismissal of CMP.
Page 3 of 5
// 4 //
XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. is posted for cross-examination of the Petitioner No.1, who is being examined as O.P.W.1. The contention raised by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioners to the effect that pursuant to the direction of this Court in CMP No.301 of 2018, possession of the suit premises was delivered to the Petitioners by the father of Opposite Parties, is a matter of appreciation by considering the materials on record. True it is that the Petitioner No.1 was not a party to the petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., but after receiving the notice in the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C., he participated in the proceeding by filing objection and at present he is in the witness box for cross-examination. At this stage, an application for dismissal of the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. against him was filed by the Petitioners stating the aforesaid facts as narrated by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioners. Since the Petitioner No.1 being aware of the fact that he was not a party to the proceeding under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. contested the proceeding, a petition under Section 151 C.P.C. to dismiss the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. against him, at this stage when he is in the witness box, is nothing but to avoid the rigorous of the proceeding under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. Had such a petition been filed at the threshold, when he entered appearance, it could have made some sense. Hence, learned trial Court has committed no error in dismissing the petition filed under Section 151 C.P.C. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-8.
Page 4 of 5
// 5 //
7. Accordingly, the CMP being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
bks
Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking dismissal of proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. is maintainable when the petitioner participated in the proceedings after receiving notic
Whether possession delivery pursuant to a High Court order in a related matter precludes the continuance of Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. proceedings?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's refusal to entertain a Section 151 C.P.C. application for abuse of process?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ghanashyam Pradhan and others –v- Ram Pratap KheriaReferred¶21
2018 (I) ILR CUT-936 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Pratap Kheria and others
Ranjan Kumar Pradhan and another
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
