Sadananda Sahoo Vs Purusottam Sahoo

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶16

By filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Opposite Party-defendant and appellant No.1 before the 1^st Appellate Court in FAO No.11 of 2025 has approached this Court challenging order dated 22.12.2025 passed in the abovenoted appeal by the 1^st Appellate Court.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Opposite Party No.1 as plaintiff filed a suit for partition arraying the Petitioner as well as the other Opposite Parties as

¶18

Page 1 of 4.

¶19

defendants. In the suit for partition, the Opposite Party No.1 filed an application under Order 40 Rule 1 of the CPC for appointment of the receiver. The said I.A was taken up by the learned trial court and disposed of vide order dated 20.09.2025 by passing a detailed and speaking order. Finally, the said I.A was disposed of thereby appointing the Opposite Party No.1-the present Petitioner as a receiver and the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 11, who are the Opposite Parties in the present CMP application, were directed to pay their monthly rent to the Opposite Party No.1 in the court below, who is the CMP-Petitioner, before first week of every month. The Opposite Party No.1 was further directed to deposit the collected amount in the second week of every month till disposal of the original suit.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that being aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2025 at Annexure-5 to the CMP application, the Opposite Party No.1, who is the Petitioner before this Court, approached the first appellate court by filing an appeal which was registered as FAO No.11 of 2025. Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that initially the FAO was admitted and interim order was passed staying operation of the order dated 20.09.2025. He further contended that vide order dated 26.09.2025 at Annexure-6 to the CMP application, the learned Additional District Judge, Jajpur Road has specifically stayed the operation of the order dated 20.09.2025 till appearance of the Respondents in the appeal. He further contended that after appearance of the Respondents in the appeal, the interim order dated 26.09.2025 which stayed operation of the order dated 20.09.2025 at Annexure-

¶21

Page 2 of 4.

¶22

5 was vacated by the 1^st Appellate Court vide order dated 22.12.2025 at Annexure-1 to the present CMP application. Being aggrieved by such vacation of the interim order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Appellant No.1-Petitioner at this juncture contended that challenging order dated 20.09.2025 though he has filed an appeal before the 1^st Appellate Court, however, without adjudicating such appeal, the learned 1^st Appellate Court has vacated the interim order dated 26.09.2025. He further contended that as a result of which although the Petitioner has not collected the rent, however, who is required to deposit the same pursuant to the order dated 20.09.2025.

¶24

In course of hearing, learned counsels for the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.1 agreed that they will have no objection in the event the order dated 26.09.2025 remains in force till disposal of the appeal and a further request was made for a direction to the 1^st Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. It was also stated at par that the appeal is ready for hearing.

¶25

Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions, the present CMP application is being disposed of thereby extending the interim order dated 26.09.2025 at Annexure-6 till disposal of the appeal pending before the 1^st Appellate Court. Further, it is directed that on appearance of the parties before the learned first appellate court along with a copy of today’s order, the first appellate court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3 months

¶26

Page 3 of 4.

¶27

from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order.

¶28

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CMP application stands disposed of.

¶29

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶30

Anil

¶31

Page 4 of 4.

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Mar-2026 14:11:45

Sadananda Sahoo v. Purusottam Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadananda Sahoo v. Purusottam Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Durga Charan Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

P. Chandraya Vs State of Odisha

Arati Pattanaik Vs State of Odisha

Iswar Chandra Naik Vs Sova Sharma, I.A.S

Binayak Nayak Vs Arabinda Dakua,Director, Municipal Administration and Ex-Officio,Bhubaneswar

Sanyasi Sahu Vs Deoranjan Kumar Singh,Ias, Secretary Revenue and Disaster Management Deptt.