Disposed¶41

Praveen Chandra Bhanjdeo v. Prativa Manjari Devi

Orissa HC16 Jan 2025CMP/726/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, CMP No. 726 of 2024, decided 16.01.2025 by Justice K.R. Mohapatra: deletion of observations in appellate judgment dated 09.05.2024 (District Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada, FAO No. 15 of 2023, Annexure-6) modifying interim restraint order dated 19.05.2023 in I.A No. 57 of 2023 / Civil Suit No. 291 of 2023 (Annexure-5); entry/inspection permission and privacy direction deleted; status quo and nature-and-character restrictions retained; CMP disposed of with modification.

What did the court decide?

Deletion of the specified observations (permission to the opposite parties and the plaintiff to enter/inspect the suit land, and the privacy direction) from the impugned order dated 9th May, 2024 (Annexure-6); the rest of the impugned order left unaltered. ¶41

Praveen Chandra Bhanjdeo Vs Prativa Manjari Devi — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the observations in the appellate Court's judgment (Annexure-6) permitting the opposite parties and the plaintiff to enter into/visit and inspect the suit land, and directing that privacy be respected at the time of entry and inspection, should be deleted from the impugned order as contrary to the direction to maintain status quo over the suit property.

¶38

Court's answer

Without further delving into the matter and without recording any finding on the merit of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court directed that the specified observations in the impugned order (the permission to the O.Ps. and the plaintiff to enter/inspect the suit land, together with the privacy direction) be deleted.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The identified observations were ordered to be deleted from the impugned order, and the rest of the impugned order stands unaltered.

¶40

Key takeaways

The CMP stands disposed of with the modification in the impugned order to the aforesaid extent.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — CMP No. 726 of 2024, Praveen Chandra Bhanjdeo v. Prativa Manjari Devi and Others (K.R. Mohapatra, J.; order dated 16.01.2025). The petitioner sought deletion of certain observations made by the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada in the judgment dated 9th May, 2024 (Annexure-6) disposing of FAO No. 15 of 2023, by which the interim order dated 19th May, 2023 (Annexure-5) in I.A No. 57 of 2023 arising out of Civil Suit No. 291 of 2023 was modified. The contested observations permitted the opposite parties and the plaintiff to enter into/inspect the suit land and required privacy to be respected at entry and inspection. Counsel for the contesting Opposite Party No.1 raised no objection to their deletion. Without recording any finding on merits, the Court directed deletion of those observations; the directions maintaining status quo on the suit property and restraining change of its nature and character stand unaltered. The CMP was disposed of with this modification.

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 17-Jan-2025 16:49:06

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

CMP No. 726 OF 2024

¶5

Praveen Chandra Bhanjdeo

¶6

…. Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Sourav Suman Bhuyan, Advocate

¶8

-versus-

¶9

Prativa Manjari Devi and Others

¶10

…. Opp. Parties

¶11

Mr. Prithiwiraj Sinha, Advocate along with Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.1)

¶12

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

16.01.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶18

Petitioner in this CMP seeks to delete the observation made by learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada while disposing of FAO No. 15 of 2023.

¶19

Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate submitted that Opposite Party No.3 herein had filed FAO No.15 of 2023 assailing the order dated 19^th May, 2023 (Annexure-5) passed in I.A No. 57 of 2023 (arising out of Civil Suit No. 291 of 2023) whereby learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Baripada restrained the Opposite Party from entering into the suit land and interfering with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner over the suit land. The Opposite Parties were also directed not to create any kind of encumbrance and 3^rd party interest over the suit property.

¶20

3.1 Learned appellate Court, while disposing of FAO No.15 of 2023 vide judgment dated 9^th May, 2024 under Annexure-6, modified the said order under Annexure-5 directing as under :-

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 17-Jan-2025 16:49:06

¶24

“O.R.D.E.R

¶25

It is ordered that:- .

¶26

Smt. Padma Manjari Devi, Smt Sneha Manjari Rana, Sri Praveen Chandra Bhanjadeo, Smt Mita Mohanty and Smt. Lilabati Mohanty (O.Ps in IA. No.57/23 arising out of CS No. 291/2023) are restrained from creating any sort of incumbency, direct or indirect over the suit land.

¶27

It is further directed that the fact of possession of the suit land of the parties will be decided in the suit on the basis of evidence and law in force and both the parties are directed to maintain status quo on suit property;

¶28

Further, it is directed that above named O.Ps. and the plaintiff Smt. Prativa Manjari Devi can enter into the suit land strictly adhering to the principles of law, decency, morality, mutual obligation and reciprocity while visiting/ inspecting the suit property. Privacy of the parties as well as any other person having interest on the suit property or any part thereof must be respected at the time of entry and time of the inspection of the property.

¶29

Both the parties are directed not to change the nature and character of the suit property in any manner.

¶30

This order will be in force till disposal of the suit or till such time, as the court below may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶31

3.2 Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate further submits that the Petitioner does not have any objection with regard to direction to the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property and restraining both the parties from changing the nature and character of the suit property in any manner.

¶32

3.3 However, he is aggrieved by the order directing that the Opposite Parties and the Plaintiff Smt. Pratibha Manjari Devi can enter into the suit land strictly adhering to the principles of law, decency, morality, mutual obligation and reciprocity while visiting/inspecting the suit property.

¶33

3.4 He is also aggrieved by the observation that privacy of the parties as well as any other persons having interest in the suit

¶34

Page 2 of 3

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 17-Jan-2025 16:49:06

¶37

property or any part thereof must be respected at the time of entry and inspection of the suit property.

¶38

He, therefore, prays for deleting the observation to the aforesaid extent, which is contrary to the direction made by learned appellate Court to maintain status quo over the suit property.

¶39

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the contesting Opposite Party No.1 namely Smt. Pratibha Manjari Devi, submits that she being the absolute owner in respect of the suit property by virtue of a Will is in possession over the same. However, there is no finding in the impugned order under Annexure-6 with regard to possession of the parties. Thus, the impugned observations as stated by Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate creates confusion. As such, he has no objection if the same is deleted from the impugned order.

¶40

In view of the above, this Court without further delving into the matter and recording any finding on the merit of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, directs that the following observations, i.e., “….. Further, it is directed that above named O.Ps and the plaintiff Smt. Prativa Manjari Devi can enter into the suit land strictly adhering to the principles of law, decency, morality, mutual obligation and reciprocity while visiting/ inspecting the suit property. Privacy of the parties as well as any other person having interest on the suit property or any part thereof must be respected at the time of entry and time of the inspection of the property. ….” be deleted from the impugned order. The rest part of the impugned order stands unaltered.

¶41

The CMP is disposed of with the modification in the impugned order to the aforesaid extent.

¶42

sarbani

¶43

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶44

Page 3 of 3

Praveen Chandra Bhanjdeo v. Prativa Manjari Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Chandra Bhanjdeo v. Prativa Manjari Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukanta Bhata Vs Sri Radhamohan Dev Bije, Puri

Nirakar Nayak Vs Collector Cum Dist.Magistrate, Kandhamal

M/S.B.E.Billimoria Vs State

Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Bbsr Vs Board of Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur

Sankari Dei Vs State of Odisha

Maa Durga Banika Sangha, Koraput Vs State of Odisha