IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.844 of 2025 Kapilendra Mohapatra @ Kapila Chandra Mohapatra … Appellant Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Saibrata Rath, Advocate -Versus- Punjab National Bank (E-UBI), Barpada Branch and others … Respondents Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 23.06.2025 01. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Opposite Party No.5 to a writ petition filed by respondent no.1 has filed the instant appeal assailing the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.11450 of 2025 primarily on the ground that the writ Court ought not to have usurped the power of the Civil Appellate Court in nullifying the effect of the order of temporary injunction, by which the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property being the subject-matter of the Civil Suit No.590 of 2022 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak. 3. Undeniably, the appellant and respondent no.1 entered into an agreement for use and occupation of the portion of the property for banking purposes for a duration as reserved therein. The said agreement/lease expired in the year 2021 by efflux of time and, admittedly, the same is not renewed as of now. 4. The appellant approached the Civil Court for recovery of the arrear amount and also the amount on the basis of the terms and conditions embodied in the said agreement which is still pending. Since the Bank was operating at the premises after the expiry of the period provided therefor, the prayer for recovery was also made therein. However, respondent no.1 took a defence that the appellant wrongly and illegally put up a lock at the main entrance gate which impeded the functioning of the Bank at the demised premises and later on approached the Police Authorities to render adequate assistance to remove the obstacles put thereon. 5. Alleging inaction on the part of the Police Authorities, the writ petition was filed and by the impugned order the Single Judge directed the respondent no.1-Bank to shift after vacating the demised premises to another place, subject however, to deposit all the rent with the Civil Court where the suit is pending. 6. According to the appellant, such order impinges upon the order of the temporary injunction passed by the Court in presence of the parties which can only be interfered with by the Appellate Court under Order-43, Rule-1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure and not otherwise. It is submitted that without exhausting the remedy of an appeal provided under the aforesaid provision, the writ Court should not have transgressed its jurisdictional circumference and pass an order which would negate the effect of the order of temporary injunction passed by the Civil Court while disposing of an application under Order-39, Rules-1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. Obviously, the moment the approach is made to the Civil Court which is in seisin of the matter, the writ Court should be slow in interfering with any adjudication, be it tentative or otherwise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ Court should not overreach the domain of the Civil Court if the dispute is of civil nature and must confine its adjudication within contours of the reliefs claimed therein, which in the instant case is inaction on the part of the Police Authorities in rendering assistance to respondent no.1-Bank. The exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court should not be done in cavalier manner, but with a great caution as the right, which is purely civil in nature, cannot be decided without evidence to be led in this regard, more particularly when the Civil Court is in seisin of the suit. 8. Be that as it may, despite having noticed the order of temporary injunction is diluted to some extent in the impugned order; we are informed that the respondent no.1-Bank in the meantime have shifted to another place after vacating the demised premises. According to the learned counsel for the respondent no.1- Bank, the Bank have deposited the rent in terms of the agreement and, therefore, it cannot be said that they are in default. 9. Though one of the reliefs claimed in the plaint appears to have been extended to the appellant, i.e., the eviction against respondent no.1-Bank, the other issues pertaining to the arrear rent and the rate of rent on the basis of an agreement remained pending. We feel that any observation made in the impugned order should not have any persuasive impact upon the Civil Court in deciding the issue framed on the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties. It is open to the Civil Court to frame the issue from the respective pleadings and permit the parties to lead evidence thereupon and the decision on such issues shall be taken independent of any observations made in the impugned order. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Designation: Senior Stenographer