Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.796 of 2026 Chaitanya Deba Lenka ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Niranjan Lenka -versus- Narendra Lenka ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 12.05.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. 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 in C.S. No.315 of 2026 pending in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, 1st Court, Cuttack has approached this Court challenging order dated 25.03.2026 at Annexure-6, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the plaintiff’s application under Order-39, Rule-3 of the CPC. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the Page 2 of 4. contract and for consequential injunctive reliefs. He further submitted that along with his plaint the plaintiff filed an application under Order-39, Rule-1 & 2 as well as Order-39, Rule-3 of the CPC. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that keeping in view the urgency involved in the suit, i.e. the defendants are going to sale out the suit land and the Petitioner moved the application under Order-39, Rule-3 of CPC, thereby requesting the learned trial Court to protect the suit scheduled property till disposal of the application under Order-39, Rule-1 & 2 of the CPC. 5. On perusal of the impugned order dated 25.03.2026, this Court found that the application of the Petitioner for grant of ad interim injunction against the defendant to not to alienate the suit scheduled land in favour of any other person has been rejected by the learned trial Court with the observation that it appears that there exists no urgent situation which can lead to an order of ex-parte injunction against the Opposite Party without giving any opportunity to him to object to the averments made in the I.A. application by the plaintiff. 6. On a careful analysis of the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 at Annexure-6, this court is of the view that keeping in mind that the suit is for specific performance of the contract the first and foremost duty of the court is to ensure that the suit scheduled property is secured till disposal of the application under Order-39, Rule-1 & 2 of the CPC. In a suit for specific performance of the contract there always exists a probability that the defendant is likely to alienate the property to avoid the litigation. In the impugned order dated 25.03.2026, the learned trial Court without discussing in detail the Page 3 of 4. urgency has concluded that there exists no urgent situation. This Court further observes that in the event no interim order is passed prohibiting alienation of the suit scheduled property till disposal of the application under Order-39, Rule-1 & 2 of the CPC there is every likelihood that the defendants might alienate the suit scheduled property and eventually the application under Order-39, Rule-1 & 2 of the CPC would become infructuous. In the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has not considered the application of the Petitioner under Order-39, Rule-3 of the CPC in its proper prospective. 7. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, upon a close scrutiny of order dated 25.03.2026, this Court directs the learned trial Court to take up the application of the Petitioner under Order-39, Rule-1 & 2 of the CPC and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks after providing opportunity to both sides. Further, this Court directs that the Opposite Party shall not alienate the suit scheduled property for a period of eight weeks. This Court further makes it clear that this is an interim arrangement made by this Court without making any observation on the merits of the matter. It is open to the learned trial Court to consider the application filed by the plaintiff under Order-39, Rule-1 & 2 of the CPC on its own merits and on the basis of the materials available on record and without being influenced by the present order. Since this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission without issuing notice to the Opposite Party, liberty is granted to the Opposite Party to seek variation or modification of today’s order in the event it is found that Page 4 of 4. the Petitioner has suppressed any material particulars or has misled the Court in any manner. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CMP application stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout