Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16084 of 2026 Subhakanti Patel and others ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. – Mr. Hara Prasad Rath -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 22.05.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has made the following prayer:- It is therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to allow the Writ application, and call for the relevant records, and issue notice to the Opp. Parties, to file show cause, after hearing from both sides your Lordships kindly direct to Opp. Party the Collector of Baolangir and Supdt. of Police, Balangir to protect right of life, and livelihood of the petitioners. And also direct to take immediate steps according the order passed by the learned Page 2 of 3. court below on dtd. 17.04.2024 ; And/or may pass such other order(s)/ direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner as a Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and for consequential reliefs. He further contended that along with the suit the Plaintiff-Petitioner filed an application under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of C.P.C. wherein the trial court has passed an interim order. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is that although there is an interim order, however such order is not being implemented. He further submitted that the Petitioner approached the local authorities for implementation of the order. However, none of the authorities has paid any heed to the grievance of the present Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. On a careful analysis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, further on a close scrutiny of the factual background of the present case, this Court is of the view that the statutory remedy is available to the Petitioner in the shape of Order-39 Rule-2A of C.P.C that in the event of violation of any injunction order passed by the learned trial court. 6. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the trial court by filing an application Page 3 of 3. under Order-39 Rule-2A of the C.P.C., which shall be considered and disposed of by the trial court as early as possible after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis