Orissa High Court
CMP/1435/2026 of SUMANBALA DAS Vs AVA DAS on 8 September 2026
of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P No.1435 of 2026 CNR No.ODHC010643672026 Sumanbala Das & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandrakant Nayak , Adv. -versus- Ava Das & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Sr. Adv. Mr. G.R. Mahapatra, Adv. (for O.P. Nos.1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
C.M.P No.1435 of 2026
CNR No.ODHC010643672026
Sumanbala Das & Ors.
….
Petitioner(s)
Mr. Chandrakant Nayak , Adv.
-versus-
Ava Das & Anr.
….
Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. G.R. Mahapatra, Adv. (for O.P. Nos.1 & 2)
Mr. Satyaprakash Dhal, Adv. (For intervenors)
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order No.
02.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
08.09.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate, enters appearance for the Opposite Parties by filing his memo of appearance, which is taken on record.
3. By filing the present CMP, the Petitioners, who are the Defendants in C.S. No.223 of 2024, assail the order dated 06.07.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Angul in F.A.O. No.03 of 2025, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul in I.A. No.46 of 2024, directing the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Plaintiffs' claim is founded upon the registered partition deed dated 20.08.1959, under which Ac.7.96 decimals is claimed to have fallen to their share. It is contended that, when the property had already been partitioned, the subsequent suit for partition is not maintainable. It is further contended that the Courts below have erroneously directed status quo over the entire area of Ac.70.5200 decimals, though the Plaintiffs claim only Ac.7.96 decimals. It is also submitted that there is no proper correlation between the Sabik plots and the corresponding Hal plots and, therefore, the property has not been sufficiently identified as required under Order VII Rule 3 CPC.
5. Learned Senior Advocate for the Opposite Parties submits that the suit has been filed to give effect to the shares recognised under the registered partition deed and that the subsequent revenue recording in the name of one branch does not extinguish the rights arising out of the said deed. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs produced the relevant Sabik and Hal records before the learned trial Court, which, upon consideration of the materials and the apprehension of alienation of the disputed property, granted interim protection vide order dated 11.04.2025 passed in I.A. No.46 of 2024. The said order was thereafter affirmed by the learned
District Judge, Angul vide judgment dated 6.07.2026 in F.A.O. No.3 of 2025.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders, this Court finds that the existence of the registered partition deed is not in serious dispute. The controversy regarding the effect of the said deed, correlation between the Sabik and Hal plots, the precise extent of the respective shares and the correctness of the subsequent revenue entries are matters requiring adjudication in the pending suit.
7. At the interlocutory stage, the Court is required to consider whether a prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury exist in favour of the party seeking injunction. The learned trial Court, upon consideration of the materials placed before it, found sufficient ground to protect the subject matter of the suit, particularly in view of the apprehension of creation of third- party rights. The learned Appellate Court, upon independent consideration, found no reason to interfere with the said discretion.
8. The contention regarding the maintainability of the suit and the alleged defect in identification of the property cannot, in the facts of the present case, be conclusively decided in the present interlocutory proceeding. The same may appropriately be considered by the learned trial Court at the stage of final adjudication. The revenue entries also cannot, by themselves, determine the civil rights of the parties where such rights are claimed on the basis of a registered partition deed.
9. This Court finds that the Courts below have exercised their discretion on relevant considerations and that no perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference. The order of status quo is intended to preserve the subject matter of the suit and prevent further creation of third-party interests till the rights of the parties are finally determined.
10. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or impropriety in the orders dated 11.04.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul in I.A. No.46 of 2024 and dated 06.07.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Angul in F.A.O. No.03 of 2025.
11. The CMP stands dismissed.
12. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the consideration of the interim relief and shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the suit on its own merits. All questions relating to title, share, identification of the property, effect of the partition deed and validity of subsequent transactions are left open.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
14. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge
Sipun