Disposed¶21

Ghanashyam Sahoo v. Nilamadhab Jena

Orissa HC13 Jan 2026CMP/34/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedition of pending injunction application; Article 227 Constitution of India; CMP No.34 of 2026; Orissa High Court, Cuttack; Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra; petitioner Ghanashyam Sahoo vs Nilamadhab Jena and others; I.A. No.01 of 2024 under O-39 Rule-1 & 2; arises out of C.S. No.1309 of 2024; 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar; trial court overburdened; no rigid early-disposal direction; soft three-month timeline from communication of order; parties to cooperate; CMP disposed of on 13.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Soft direction (not a rigid early-disposal mandate) to the trial court to endeavour to dispose of pending I.A. No.01 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months of communication of a copy of the order; parties directed to cooperate with the trial court. ¶21

Ghanashyam Sahoo Vs Nilamadhab Jena — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court should be directed to take up and dispose of, in a time-bound manner, the pending interlocutory application I.A. No.01 of 2024 (under O-39 Rule-1 & 2, seeking injunctive relief) arising out of C.S. No.1309 of 2024.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to give any direction to the trial court for early disposal of the interlocutory application, being of the view that the court of the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar is overburdened with several civil litigations.

¶19

Key takeaways

The Court disposed of the CMP by directing the trial court to make every endeavour to ensure that the pending interlocutory application is disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of the order, and further directed the parties to cooperate with the trial court for its early disposal.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CMP No.34 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 13.01.2026 by Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra: Petitioner-plaintiff Ghanashyam Sahoo, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, sought a direction to the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar for early/time-bound disposal of I.A. No.01 of 2024, an injunction application under O-39 Rule-1 & 2 pending since 2024 in C.S. No.1309 of 2024 against Nilamadhab Jena and others. Finding the trial court overburdened with several civil litigations, the Court declined to give a rigid early-disposal direction, but disposed of the CMP by directing the trial court to make every endeavour to dispose of the interlocutory application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from communication of a copy of the order, with directions to the parties to cooperate.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CMP No.34 of 2026

¶3

Ghanashyam Sahoo

¶4

.....

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Represented by Adv. – Mr. Nirmal Kishore Rath

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Nilamadhab Jena and others ..... Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER

¶11

13.01.2026

¶12

Order No.

¶13

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶15

By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-Plaintiff seeks for a direction to the learned 2^nd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar for early disposal of I.A. No.01 of 2024 filed under O-39 Rule-1 & 2, which arises out of C.S. No.1309 of 2024.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that although the application for injunctive relief under O-39 Rule-1 & 2 has been filed in the year 2024, however, the trial court has not been able to take up such matter due to huge load of the pending litigations. He further contended that taking into consideration the urgency involved in the interim application, and that the Petitioner prayed for injunctive relief, the trial court be directed to take up such application and dispose

¶17

Page 1 of 1.

¶18

of the same in a time bound manner.

¶19

On a careful consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and further keeping in view the prayer made in the present CMP application, this Court is of the view that the court of the learned 2^nd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar is over burdened with several civil litigations. Therefore, this Court, at the outset, does not deem it proper to give any direction to the trial court for an early disposal of the application.

¶20

Further, taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner has prayed for consideration and disposal of the interlocutory application under O-39 Rule-1 & 2 and the same is pending since 2024, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present application by directing the trial court to make every endeavour to ensure that the aforesaid pending interlocutory application is disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. The parties are directed to cooperate with the trial court for an early disposal of the interlocutory application.

¶21