Remanded

Malli Panda v. Bhagaban Panda

Orissa HC17 May 2024CMP/502/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposal addresses an application challenging a lower court's rejection of a petition under Section 151 CPC. The High Court held that the trial court erred in believing it lacked jurisdiction to direct police aid for enforcing a status quo order. The special matter was remitted to the trial court to hear the application afresh in light of the 'Manoj Manjari Mohapatra' precedent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside; matter remitted to trial court to consider Section 151 CPC petition afresh.

Malli Panda Vs Bhagaban Panda — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 20-May-2024 14:31:10

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP NO.502 OF 2024

¶4

Malli Panda and others

¶5

…. Petitioners

¶6

Mr. Deepak Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Bhagaban Panda and others …. Opp. Parties

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER

Order No.

17.05.2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Order dated 30^th January, 2024 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Soro in IA No.58 of 2023 (arising out of CS No.48/51 of 2021-I) is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed by the Petitioners under Section 151 CPC for a direction to implement the order of status quo dated 20^th February, 2023 passed by learned District Judge, Balasore in FAO No.02 of 2022 has been rejected.

¶16

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in CS No.48/51 of 2021-I, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed which was dismissed by learned trial Court. Assailing the same, the Petitioners preferred FAO No.02 of 2022 and learned District Judge, Balasore by his order dated 20^th February, 2023 directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit land. The Opposite Parties in utter violation of the said order of status quo put fence in front of the house of the Petitioners thereby obstructed an access to the Petitioners to their house. Inspite of the protest of the Petitioner No.1, they did not pay any heed. On the other hand, they abused Petitioner No.1 in filthy language. The matter was reported to the police, but to no effect. In furtherance to their disobedience, the

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 20-May-2024 14:31:10

¶20

Opposite Parties dug earth on 10^th April, 2023 and collected materials to start new construction covering the frontage of the suit property. Finding no other alternative, the Petitioners filed IA No.57 of 2023 under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC alleging violation of the order of status quo . Since the order to be passed in the petition will not put the Petitioners in the condition on the date of passing of the order of status quo and mitigate the prejudice caused to him by violation of the said order, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed to implement the order of status quo with police help. The said application was rejected by learned trial Court holding that there is no provision in CPC empowering the Court to render police help to enforce the decree/ order. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and to direct the concerned local police to implement the order of status quo .

¶21

Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioners and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that learned trial Court proceeded on a misconception that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 151 CPC to direct local police to implement the order of status quo . Law is not more res integra in this field. In the case of Manoj Manjari Mohapatra –v- Kapila @ Kapilendra Mohapatra , reported in (2021) (II) ILR-CUT-230, this Court has laid down the broad guideline to entertain an application under Section 151 CPC in directing the local police to implement the order of injunction, which is as follows:

¶22

“9. Thus, the Court has also the power to restore possession in exercise of power under Section 151 C.P.C. in the event a party is dispossessed in utter violation of order of injunction/status quo. But, while exercising discretion under Section 151 C.P.C., the

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 20-May-2024 14:31:10

¶26

Court must be extremely careful and circumspect and only when the Court is satisfied that the remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. will not be sufficient to maintain the order passed or remedy the prejudice caused to the applicant, it may exercise such discretion. If necessary, the Court may also direct the police authority to render aid and assistance for implementation of the restraint order. It is the duty of the Court to see that the order of injunction/status quo is respected and maintained during pendency of the suit and suit property is protected. The Court has also the power to put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the restraint order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit.”

¶27

It appears from the impugned order that learned trial Court has not considered the aforesaid aspect while adjudicating the petition under Section 151 CPC.

¶28

Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is set aside and the matter is remitted to learned trial Court to consider the petition under Section 151 CPC afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned keeping in mind the ratio decided in the case of Manoj Manjari Mohapatra (supra).

¶29

This CMP is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

Since this CMP is disposed of without issuing notice to the Opposite Parties, they are at liberty to seek for variation of this order, if they feel aggrieved.

¶31

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

¶32

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶33

Rojalin

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Malli Panda v. Bhagaban Panda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malli Panda v. Bhagaban Panda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar Behera Vs Subhashree Majhi

Sourav Sekhar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Gadadhar Muduli Vs State of Odisha

Sudarshan Patri Vs Gouranga Chandra Panda

Chandrasekhar Rout Vs Odisha Information Commission, Bbsr

Biswajit Das Vs State of Odisha