AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raghubir Dash, J.—Misc. Case No. 537 of 2014 is with a prayer to modify/clarify the judgment dated 16.5.2014 which has been passed in F.A.O. No. 243 of 2013 dismissing the F.A.O.
Since the appellants therein have taken the stand that the construction of a statue of Lord Hanuman being over Plot No. 457 under Khata No. 619 of Mouza Chandrasekharpur which is not covered under the plaint schedule, this Court observed in the said judgment that if the defendants are going to install the statue on a plot which is not included in the plaint schedule, then the interim injunction granted against them would have no operation as against such construction work as they could very well proceed construction on a piece of land which is not part and parcel of the suit land.
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent/petitioner it is alleged that after passing of the judgment with the aforesaid observation the defendants-appellants/O.Ps. have been able to convince the local Police that this Court has allowed the appellants to proceed with the construction of the statue over a portion of the suit land.
Order of interim injunction is in force as against the appellants. The order passed in I.A. No. 176 of 2013 arising out of C.S. No. 304 of 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar restraining the appellants from entering upon the suit land and creating any disturbances or interference with regard to the suit land during pendency of the suit has been confirmed by this Court. But, the specific and consistent plea of the appellants is that the construction of statue is not over any of the plots included in the plaint schedule. So far, none of the parties have taken any step to get the construction site measured to find out whether it is coming within any of the suit plots. It appears, the respondent has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. with a prayer to direct the local Police to see that the order of injunction is implemented in its letter and spirit. In that proceeding the respondent has to establish that the appellants have disobeyed the order of injunction by raising construction of the Hanuman statue over a portion of the suit land. It is not understood as to why no step has yet been taken to get the disputed site identified by way of local inspection. It at all a direction is issued by the learned trial court to the Police for implementation of the order of interim injunction, then the Police is at liberty to get the construction site measured to find out if it is a part of any of the suit plots.
Be that as it may, the respondent has not made out a good case for modification of the judgment dated 16.5.2014. However, it is made clear that the observation made by this Court that the appellants can proceed with such construction on a piece of land which is not part and parcel of the suit land should not be construed by any one as giving the appellants license to raise the construction even if in course of local inspection or any other enquiry made at the instance of the learned trial court or the local Police it is prima facie found that the construction site is coming within the area of any of the suit plots mentioned in the plaint schedule.
With this observation, the Misc. Case stands disposed of.
The other Misc. Case No. 538 of 2014 is for restraining the appellants from making construction of the Hanuman statue till disposal of Misc. Case No. 537 of 2014.
Since the Misc. Case No. 537 of 2014 has been disposed of, the Misc. Case has become infructuous and the same is dismissed.