Dismissed

Rama Kr.Das Mohapatr v. Birendra M.Sarkar

Orissa HC3 Nov 2023WP(C)/966/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend a plaint for permanent injunction. The petition was dismissed because the petitioner had already been evicted from the land, rendering the suit injunctory relief futile, and had not substituted a respondent as directed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order under Annexure-3 not interfered with.

Rama Kr.Das Mohapatr Vs Birendra M.Sarkar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 03-Nov-2023 18:58:27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C). NO.966 OF 2011 Rama Krushna Das Mohapatra …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Prafulla Kumar Lenka, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Birendramohan Sarkar and others …. Opp. Parties

¶7

Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate Mr. Amlan Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Patrtha Mukherji, Advocate (For Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3)

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

03.11.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Order dated 10^th January, 2011 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri in OS No.606 of 2001 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby a petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint, has been rejected.

¶15

Mr. Lenka, learned counsel submits that he has instruction to appear on behalf of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the suit has been filed for permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1958 came into force and the Petitioner has filed Lease Case No.07 of 2009 for settlement of the land in his name. It is also submitted that Defendant No.2 has filed BPL Case No.150 of 1995. Hence, the Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate the subsequent developments in the pleadings. Learned trial Court holding that the amendments sought for are not relevant

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 03-Nov-2023 18:58:27

¶19

for proper adjudication of the suit, rejected the same. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

¶20

In course of hearing, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 brought to the notice of the Court that the Petitioner, in the meantime, has been evicted from the suit land. Hence, he submits that the suit has already become infructuous.

¶21

Mr. Lenka, learned counsel also agrees to the same submitting that pursuant to the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Petitioner has been evicted from the suit land.

¶22

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner has not taken any step for substitution of Opposite Party No.1 pursuant to the order dated 6^th July, 2011. Office note also discloses the same.

¶23

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Petitioner has already been evicted from the suit land in the meantime. Hence, no relief can be granted in a suit for injunction simplicitor. It also appears that the Petitioner has not taken any step for substitution of Opposite Party No.1.

¶24

In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-3.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶26

The case record of W.P.(C). No.448 of 2011 be detached and be sent to the concerned section.

¶27

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶28

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶29

Rojalin

¶30

Page 2 of 2

Rama Kr.Das Mohapatr v. Birendra M.Sarkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Kr.Das Mohapatr v. Birendra M.Sarkar

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

Neha Das andANR. Vs Aurobinda Das andORS.

Narayan Manik Vs Manoranjan Mohapatra, Oas (I)

Debidutta Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Manaswinee Pattnaik Vs Srei Infra Structur

Madan Behera Vs Kulamani Behera

Dukmal Nayak Vs Kaikei Nayak