Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1832 of 2025 Sri Sri Gopinath Jew Thakur Bije Nijagruha Marfat Sri Kishore Kumar Choudhury @ Chaudhury ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Arun Kumar Behera -versus- State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Mr. S.Behera, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 11.02.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Plaintiff, who happens to be a deity in perpetual minor and represented by a marfatdar, has approached this Court challenging order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jaleswar in I.A. No.230 of 2025 which arises out of C.S. No.360 of 2024. By virtue of the impugned order dated 27.10.2025, the learned trial court has rejected the petition of the plaintiff-Petitioner filed under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC. Page 2 of 3. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the previous ROR the land was recorded in the name of the plaintiff- deity. However, during the last settlement operation the same has been wrongly recorded in Government khata. As a result of which the plaintiff-deity has filed the suit for correction of the ROR and for permanent injunction along with the suit was also filed seeking interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. The plaintiff also filed an application under Rule 3 seeking ex-parte ad interim injunction against the defendants. Such application having been rejected, the plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the prayer made in the present CMP application. He further submitted that taking into consideration the fact that the land has been recorded in Government khata, no ad-interim injunction could be passed without hearing the State-Opposite Parties. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present application being devoid of merit, should be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to the CMP application, further on a close scrutiny of order dated 27.10.2025, this Court observes that the application of the Petitioner filed under Order 39 Rule 3 having been rejected by the learned trial court the plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application. On perusal of the order, it appears that notices were issued on 27.10.2025. Therefore, by now the notice must have been validly served on the Defendants. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the present CMP application is Page 3 of 3. being disposed of by directing the learned trial court to consider and dispose of the application of the Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months after providing an opportunity of hearing to both sides. As an interim it is also directed that till the ad-interim injunction application is taken up by the learned trial court, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the possession over the suit scheduled land. 7. Accordingly, the CMP application stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi