Ghana Pradhan and Others vs Raghunath alias Arakhita Pradhan and Others

P. K. Tripathy, J.—Heard.

This writ application is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission on consent of the parties.

Petitioners are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 677 of 2001. They filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC registered as Misc. Case No. 252 of 2001. As stated by learned counsel for the petitioners in that application for temporary injunction, petitioners prayed for temporary injunction with respect to consolidation Plot No. 236, corresponding to Hal Settlement Plot No. 219. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the contesting opposite party members. Plaintiff, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and the other defendants are members belonging to the same family. As noted in the impugned judgment, the status of partition 50 years back is an admitted fact. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri rejected the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC taking note of the fact that in the record of rights, note of possession was in favour of the defendants 3 and 4, whereas during consolidation operations, the disputed property has been jointly recorded and the consolidation authority had no right to correct the settlement entries in the said manner and to reflect the note of possession jointly in the alleged manner.

Learned Additional District Judge on appeal by the plaintiffs upheld the findings of the Civil Judge and dismissed the appeal. After hearing the petitioner, this Court finds that though the aforesaid conclusion of the points below relating to jurisdiction of the consolidation authority is not correct in view of the ratio in the cases of Srinibas Jena and Others Vs. Janardan Jena and Others, and Radhika Bewa and Radha Dei and Ors. v. Panchanan Sahu and Ors. 64 (1987) CLT 523, yet, in this case, petitioners are not entitled to the relief of temporary injunction when admittedly the entry in the consolidation records does not exclude the possession of the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 with respect to the suit plot. In a case of joint possession, parties are to maintain that status quo and there cannot be an order of injunction against the co-possessor. Ratio in the case of Sundarmani Bewa and Another etc. Vs. Dasarath Parida (deceased by L.R.) and Others etc., is of no assistance to the petitioner either relating to correction of settlement entries or relating to grant of temporary injunction. Under such circumstance, there is nothing to interfere with the order of refusal of injunction though the reason may be different and arising within the said proceeding. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no reason to pass an order of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff-petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.