Nunaram Majhi @ Tudu Vs Sarat Chandra Jena

Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the decision by order dated 21^st December, 2024 passed in I.A. No.25 of 2023 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairangpur arising out of CS No.144 of 2023 as at Annexure-4 followed by a judgment dated 27^th March, 2025 in FAO No.11 of 2024 as at Annexure-5 on the grounds stated.

¶17

Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that such an order of mandatory injunction could not have been passed by learned court below in absence of any such relief from the side of the opposite parties. Furthermore, the submission is that pending any such enquiry with the assistance of a Salaried Amin having been directed, learned court below could not have allowed any such interference of the local PS and therefore, the impugned order dated 21^st December, 2024 as at Annexure-4 is

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

liable to be interfered with. It is submitted that against the order under challenge, FAO No.11 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner but it was disposed of by learned Additional District Judge, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj by a judgment dated 27^th March, 2025 i.e. Annexure-5 with a conclusion that the appeal is not maintainable. In any view of the matter, according to Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, the opposite parties are not entitled to any such order as per Annexure-4 with a direction to local police to hold an enquiry to ensure ingress and egress using the suit schedule land, hence, the same cannot be sustained in law.

¶20

In course of hearing, Mr. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner cited a decision of this Court in Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Orissa, Bhubaneswar Vrs. Bhuban Behari Sahoo and others 2001 (I) OLR 365 to contend that in rarest of the rare cases, mandatory injunction is to be granted while entertaining interlocutory applications seeking interim injunction.

¶21

In the case at hand, the learned court below has disposed of the IA finally with such an order as per Annexure-4. A copy of the plaint is at Annexure-1 and the same is gone through. In fact, the opposite parties moved learned court below seeking injunction with an application i.e. Annexure-2. A show cause was filed by the petitioner to Annexure-2 and it was followed by Annexure-4 with a conclusion that local enquiry is needed to restore the use of the suit land as a passage by the opposite parties. It is further held therein that a field enquiry is also necessary through a Salaried Amin. Pending any such enquiry by the Amin, in view of such an order as per Annexure-4, learned court below has directed the local PS to take necessary steps to make the suit land free from any such obstruction. In fact, from the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4, it is made to reveal that the petitioner has no objection, if plaintiff No.2

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

is allowed the use the plot as a passage. Considering the nature of claim of the opposite parties and objection by way of a show cause as per Annexure-3 series from the side of the petitioner and submission of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner with reference to the decision (supra), the Court is of the view that instead of involvement of the local PS, it would serve the purpose, if pending a field enquiry with the assistance of a Salaried Amin, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land.

¶24

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶25

In the result, the CMP stands disposed of. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 in IA No.25 of 2023 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairangpur corresponding to CS No.144 of 2023 is hereby set aside to the extent as aforesaid with a direction to the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land pending such field enquiry by a Salaried Amin. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs.

¶26

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶27

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶28

TUDU

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 03-May-2025 18:53:41

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Nunaram Majhi @ Tudu v. Sarat Chandra Jena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nunaram Majhi @ Tudu v. Sarat Chandra Jena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mata Palei@Satyabhama Palei Vs Sanjukta Palei@Nayak

Kailash Chandra Behera Vs Dibya Jyoti Parida,Collector,Ganjam

Sai Sankar Patnaik@Sai Sankar Pattnaik @ Shyamsundar@Siku Vs State of Odisha

Aruna Nayak @ Arun Kumar Nayak Vs Prasanta Kumar Nayak

Ratikanta Dash Vs Debasish Kumar Sahu

Ratikanta Dash Vs Ashish Kumar Sahu