Disposed¶28

Shisir Kumar Pradhan v. Ambika Pradhan

Orissa HC9 Apr 2026CMP/533/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection; Section 151 CPC; Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 & 3 CPC; status quo order violation; enforcement of interim injunction order; I.A. No.7 of 2023; C.S. No.13 of 2023; Additional Civil Judge Pattamundai; FIR Pattamundai Rural Case No.369 dated 21.09.2025; BNS 2023 Sections 126(2), 296, 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 3(5); Shisir Kumar Pradhan v. Ambika Pradhan and others; CMP No.533 of 2026; Orissa High Court; A.K. Mohapatra; disposed with liberty to renew application; trial court to call for police station report.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the Petitioner to approach the learned trial court afresh seeking police protection; the trial court is to consider the matter in its proper perspective, call for a report from the concerned police station if required, hear both sides, and pass necessary orders. ¶28

Shisir Kumar Pradhan Vs Ambika Pradhan — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial court rightly refused to grant police protection to the Plaintiff-Petitioner under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. despite the alleged violation by the Opposite Parties of the status quo order passed in I.A. No.7 of 2023. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

This Court is of the view that the learned trial court has not considered the application of the Petitioner under Section 151 of C.P.C.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial court is under a legal obligation to ensure that the order passed by the court is followed scrupulously by the parties.

¶24

Key takeaways

Once the F.I.R. is registered, a report is to be called from the local police station and, after due consideration of such report, necessary consequential order is to be passed by the learned trial court; this procedure was not followed in the present case.ratio¶26
While disposing of the CMP, the Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the learned trial court once again seeking police protection; the trial court shall consider the matter in its proper perspective, call for a report from the concerned police station if required with regard to the allegations made by the Plaintiff-Petitioner, provide an opportunity of hearing to both sides, and pass necessary orders.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — CMP No.533 of 2026 (decided 09.04.2026, A.K. Mohapatra, J.) — Plaintiff in C.S. No.13 of 2023 (Additional Civil Judge, Pattamundai) sought police protection under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. alleging violation by the Defendants of the status quo order dated 02.05.2023 passed in I.A. No.7 of 2023; trial court rejected the prayer on 07.02.2026. High Court held the trial court had not considered the Section 151 application, that a trial court is legally obliged to ensure its orders are scrupulously followed, and that upon registration of an F.I.R. (Pattamundai Rural Case No.369 dated 21.09.2025, B.N.S. 2023 Sections 126(2)/296/115(2)/351(2)/351(3)/3(5)) a police-station report should have been called for and considered. CMP disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to renew the police-protection application, the trial court to consider it afresh, call for a police report if required, hear both sides and pass necessary orders.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.533 of 2026

¶2

Shisir Kumar Pradhan

¶3

.....

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Represented by Adv. – Mr. Pravat Ranjan Sutar

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Ambika Pradhan and others

¶8

..... Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER

¶11

09.04.2026

¶12

Order No.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

By filing the present CMP application, the Plaintiff in C.S. No.13 of 2023 pending in the court of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Pattamundai, has approached this Court thereby challenging the order dated 07.02.2026 passed by the above noted court.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that initially the Petitioner filed the above noted suit with a prayer for injunction simplicitor. He further contended that in the suit, the Petitioner has also filed an application under

¶17

Page 1 of 4 .

¶18

Order-39 and Rule-1, 2 & 3 of C.P.C. for grant of injunctive relief. He further contended that by virtue of order dated 02.05.2023 passed in I.A. No.7 of 2023, the learned trial court under Order-39 Rule-3 of C.P.C directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit scheduled land till appearance of the Opposite Parties while permitting the Plaintiff to take notice through Special Messenger.

¶19

The grievance of the Petitioner in the present CMP application is that despite such status quo order dated 02.05.2026 at Annexure-3, the Opposite Parties-Defendants violated the court’s order. Accordingly, the Plaintiff-Petitioner moved an application before learned trial court under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for police protection. Learned trial court, by virtue of the impugned order dated 07.02.2026, rejected the prayer of the Plaintiff for grant of police protection. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application.

¶20

In course of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the F.I.R. lodged by the Plaintiff-Petitioner against the Defendants-Opposite Parties which has been registered as Pattamundai Rural Case No.369 dated 21.09.2025 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2)/296/115(2)/351(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in the

¶21

Page 2 of 4 .

¶22

F.I.R., the Plaintiff-Petitioner has made specific allegation of the violation of the status quo order passed by the learned trial court. He further contended that in the meantime investigation has been concluded. However, no charge sheet has been filed by the police. Ignoring the aforesaid criminal case, learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 07.02.2026, refused to grant police protection to the Petitioner.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of argument, further submitted that unless the status quo order passed by the learned trial court is enforced, the Petitioner would be seriously prejudiced. He further contended that the Defendants are repeatedly barging into the land, which is in possession of the Plaintiff-Petitioner. It is also argued that it is duty of the learned trial court to ensure that the order passed by the court is followed by the parties. However, ignoring the aforesaid settled position of law, the trial court disbelieved the Petitioner and refused to interfere with the application under Section 151 of C.P.C. and denied police protection to the Petitioner.

¶24

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the impugned order dated 07.02.2026, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has not considered the application of the Petitioner under Section 151 of C.P.C. This Court is of the view that the learned trial court is under legal obligation to ensure that the

¶25

Page 3 of 4 .

¶26

order passed by the court is followed scrupulously by the parties. Moreover, once the F.I.R. is registered, a report is to be called from the local police station and, after due consideration of such report, necessary consequential order is to be passed by the learned trial court. However, such procedure has not been followed in the present case.

¶27

In such view of the matter, this Court, while disposing of the CMP application, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the learned trial court once again seeking police protection. In such eventuality, the trial court shall consider the matter in its proper perspective and, if required, shall also call for a report from the concerned police station with regard to the allegation made by the Plaintiff-Petitioner. Consequently, after providing an opportunity of hearing to both sides, the trial court shall pass necessary orders.

¶28