p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22548 of 2024 Barnaba Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr.Ashit Kumar Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 13.02.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). The petitioner Barnaba Pradhan has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the opposite parties 4 and 5, i.e. Tahasildar, Daringibadi and Block Development Officer, Daringibadi not to construct illegal boundary or wall over the scheduled land. From the averments taken in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner filed a Civil Suit bearing C.S. No. 13 of 2024 against the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 with a prayer to declare that the petitioner has acquired title of the scheduled property by way of adverse possession and consequently to declare that the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the scheduled land and to grant perpetual injunction against the opposite parties 1 to p. 2 3 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baliguda in which the said opposite parties have already entered appearance and written statement has also been filed. When the opposite party No.4 threatened the petitioner to evict him from the land, he filed I.A. No. 03 of 2024 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the said Civil Suit and the said I.A. was dismissed on contest. It further appears from the averments taken in the writ petition that being aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baliguda, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Baliguda bearing F.A.O. No.09 of 2024 (stated to have been wrongly mentioned as F.A.O. No.08 of 2024). It is further stated in the writ petition that O.G.L.S. appeal is pending in the appropriate forum. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on going through the averments taken in the writ petition, we are of the view that since the matter is sub judice before the appropriate Court in F.A.O. No.09 of 2024, the petitioner should have approached the appropriate Court for appropriate remedy instead of approaching this Court. Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge PKSahoo