Balaram Behera Vs Kamala Kumari @ Kamala Behera, Dei

By filing the present CMP application the plaintiff in C.S. No.7 of 2026 pending in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Athagarh has approached this Court challenging order dated 09.04.2026 passed in I.A. No.8 of 2026 by the above noted court, thereby rejecting the plaintiff’s prayer under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for partition and for consequential relief of cancellation of sale deed. Along with the plaint the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 as well as Rule 3 of the CPC. Since there was urgency involved in the

¶20

Page 1 of 3.

¶21

matter, the plaintiff moved the application under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC for grant of ad interim ex-parte injunction order. Such application was taken up by the learned trial Court and by virtue of the impugned order dated 09.04.2026, the prayer of the Petitioner for grant of ad interim ex-parte injunction has been refused by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that after rejection of the application under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC notice has been issued to the defendants and the same has been duly served. He further contended that due to none appearance of some of the defendants the main application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC has not been taken up. As a result of which, the Petitioner is seriously prejudiced. He further contended that there exists urgency in the matter. He also submitted that some of the defendants are trying to evict the Petitioner from his residential house which is a part of the joint family property.

¶22

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, further keeping in view the urgency involved in the matter and further considering the fact that notices have already been served on the defendants, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present CMP application by directing the learned Senior Civil Judge, Athagarh to take up the application of the Petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC expeditiously. In the event it is found that the notices have been duly served on all the defendants, which is only requirement in the application under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC, the learned trial Court shall proceed with the hearing of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC after passing necessary orders in

¶23

Page 2 of 3.

¶24

accordance with law. It is further directed that the application of the Petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC be considered as expeditiously as possible after providing due opportunity to the appearing parties and every endeavor shall be made to dispose of such application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. Parties are directed to cooperate with the learned trial Court.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CMP application stands disposed of.

¶26

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge

¶27

S.K. Rout

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Page 3 of 3. Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 25-Jun-2026 09:41:29

Balaram Behera v. Kamala Kumari @ Kamala Behera, Dei

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaram Behera v. Kamala Kumari @ Kamala Behera, Dei

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

Kishore Kumar Biswal Vs Hemanta Kumar Das

Pradeepta Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Kabindra Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Ajaya Kumar Dora Vs State of Odisha

Jagneswar Samantaray Vs State Educational Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar

Prativa Manjari Sahu Vs State of Odisha