High CourtsSingle Bench

Muralidhar Ojha And Others vs Purna Chandra Ojha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 12 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 OHC CK 0065

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.R. Mohapatra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2 · Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 — Section 22
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
CMP NO. 358 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 331 words

K.R. Mohapatra, J

1.This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

This CMP has been filed assailing the order dated 18th March, 2021 (Annexure-9) passed by learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in FAO No. 02

of 2021, whereby he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 8th January, 2021 passed in I.A. No.200 of 2020 (arising out of C.S. No. 248

of 2020) filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.

3.

Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners as Plaintiffs have filed C.S. No. 248 of 2020 alleging that an area of

Ac.0.02 from Consolidation Plot No.359 in Consolidation Khata No. 125 of mouza Sankentapatna under Tirtol Tahasil in the district of Jagatsinghpur

recorded in the name of the Petitioners has been amalgamated in the neighbouring land of Opposite Party in Plot Nos. 356 and 358 under Khata No.

118/4. Along with the plaint, the Petitioners also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Learned trial court holding that since

the consolidation R.O.R. has been finally published in the name of Defendant-Opposite Party and the same being not varied or modified by the

competent court of law, no order of injunction can be granted against the Opposite Party. Assailing the same, the Petitioners preferred FAO No.02 of

2021, which was also dismissed for which this CMP has been filed.

4.

Taking into consideration the fact that final R.O.R. under Section 22 of the OCH and PFL Act, 1972 has been published in the name of Defendant-

Opposite Party and the allegation that an area of Ac.0.02 decimals of the Petitioners in Consolidation Plot No. 359 is pending for consideration in the

suit, no injunction can be granted. However, any construction made during pendency of the suit should be subject to the orders to be passed in the suit.

5.

With the aforesaid observation, this CMP is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

……………………………………