Sita Sethy vs Ghan Sethy and Others

A.S. Naidu, J.—Heard.

Petitioner is the Plaintiff in T.S. No. 248 of 2001 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD), Jagatsinghpur. According to her opposite party No. 3 who is Defendant No. 6 in the suit is an outsider but he is trying to create disturbance and trespassing into the suit land for which she has filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of her right, title and interest in respect of the suit land and for confirmation of her possession over the same. Along with the plaint she filed a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC inter alia praying to restrain opposite party No. 3 form interfering with her possession over the suit land and not to obstruct her form cultivating the suit land. But while matter stood thus unfortunately the suit was dismissed for her default. It is stated that in the meanwhile the suit has been restored to file and she filed Anr. petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure. The said petition having been rejected by the trial Court the Petitioner has approached this Court. It is submitted by her learned Counsel that unless an order of status quo of the suit land is passed, the Petitioner suffer irreparable loss.

Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 strongly repudiates the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and submits that opposite party No. 3 is the purchaser of the suit land for value by a registered sale deed and he is in possession thereof and has also raised his construction thereon. This aspect of the submission of learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 is strongly denied by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Be that as it may, as in the meanwhile certain construction is stated to have been made by opposite party No. 3 on the disputed land, passing an order of injunction at this stage will cause prejudice to both sides and the construction stated to have been raised on the suit land will be misutilised. To avoid such eventuality, while disposing of this Writ Petition, I direct that opposite party No. 3 shall not claim any equity over the construction stated to have been made by him on the suit land and in the event the Petitioner succeeds in the suit either the construction shall be demolished at the cost of opposite party No. 3, or the same shall enure to the benefit of the Petitioner, as the case may be.

I further direct the trial Court to dispose of the title suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months if there is no impediment.