The High Court of Odisha dismissed a Challengeable Miscellaneous Petition filed to set aside orders rejecting applications for interim injunction under CPC. The Court held that the petitioner could not question the validity of a registered sale deed or the status of the respondent at the interlocutory stage.
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. 663 OF 2022
Manjulata Sahoo
…. Petitioner
Mr. Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Arabinda Nayak and others
…. Opp. Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
Order No.
ORDER 26.08.2022
15th March, 2022 (Annexure-4) passed in F.A.O. No.33 of 2021, whereby learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur while dismissing the appeal confirmed the order dated 1st September, 2021 under Annexure-2 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagatsinghpur in I.A. No.189 of 2021 (arising out of C.S. No.281 of 2021) dismissing the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. filed by the Petitioner.
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
vide order dated 15th March, 2022 under Annexure-4. Hence, this CMP has been filed.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
respect of the land in question. Admittedly, the Registered Sale Deed was executed in favour of Malati Sahoo on 26th August, 1994 by the recorded tenant, namely, Jogendra Nayak. The validity of the sale deed as well as status of Opposite Party No.2 can only be decided in a competent Court of law, if the issue to that effect is raised. The title passed through a Registered Sale Deed in favour of Malati Sahoo cannot be disputed at the stage of entertaining an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.. It is presumed to be correct unless and until the registered sale deed in question is proved otherwise. Likewise, the status of Opposite Party No.2 can also be decided by the competent Court of law, if the issue to that effect is raised. Admittedly, the Registered Sale Deed dated 26th August, 1994 executed in favour of Malati Sahoo is in existence.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
ms
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Challengeable Miscellaneous Petition can be entertained at the interlocutory stage when title disputes under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. require adjudication on merits.
Whether the existence of a registered sale deed precludes its validity from being questioned in an interim application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manjulata Sahoo
Arabinda Nayak and others
Justice K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
