Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.848 of 2026 Dillip Kumar Sethi ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Amit Prasad Bose -versus- M/s. Yasuja Translogistics LLP. A Limited Liability Partnershi Firm, Angul and another ..... Opposite Parties CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 20.05.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Plaintiff in C.S. No.158 of 2026 pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul has approached this Court thereby challenging the order dated 16.04.2026 passed in I.A. No.41 of 2026 on an application filed by the Plaintiff under Order-39 Rule-3 of the C.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner as a Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, Page 2 of 4. confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order-39, Rule-1 & 2 of C.P.C. as well as an application under Order-39 Rule-3 thereof. 5. Considering the urgency involved in the matter, the Petitioner moved the application under Order-39 Rule-3 of the C.P.C., which was taken up by the learned trial court on 16.04.2026 and by virtue of impugned order under Annexure-1, such application of the Petitioner under Order-39 Rule-3 of C.P.C. has been rejected. Further, referring to the impugned order, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that an undertaking given by one Satyajit Sahoo, DGM of Orissa Stevedores Ltd. on behalf of the Plaintiff to shift the boundary wall over the suit land, if found to be belonged to any other person after demarcation. 6. On perusal of the aforesaid undertaking vide letter dated 20.03.2026, the learned trial court has come to a conclusion that prima facie it is clear that the boundary wall was constructed by Orissa Stevedores Ltd over the suit land. Accordingly, the learned trial court has come to a conclusion that it is not a fit case to allow the application under Order-39 Rule-3 of C.P.C. without giving opportunity to the Defendants and without proper demarcating the suit schedule land. Hence, application under Order-39 Rule-3 of C.P.C. has been rejected by the learned trial court. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of his Page 3 of 4. argument, disputed the undertaking given on behalf of the Plaintiff. He further submitted that it is not within his knowledge as to who has filed such undertaking before the learned trial court and that whether such undertaking actually insist or not. 8. On a careful reading of the impugned order dated 16.04.2026, this Court found that the learned trial court has clearly taken note of the undertaking given on behalf of the Plaintiff and on the basis of such undertaking, the learned trial court prima facie has come to a conclusion that a boundary line has been constructed over the suit schedule land by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, awaiting appearance of the Defendants, the learned trial court rejected the application under Order-39 Rule-3 of C.P.C. It further appears that the application under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of C.P.C. has been posted for hearing on 18.06.2026. It is also a fact that all the Defendants have appeared in the meantime and the matter has been posted for filing of the objection. 9. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the CMP application by directing the learned trial court to expedite the hearing of the application of the Petitioner under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of C.P.C. and make an endeavour to conclude the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. Before disposing of the application under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of C.P.C., the trial court shall provide ample opportunity to both Page 4 of 4. sides to put-forth their case. It is further directed that as an interim measure, it is directed that status quo as on date with regard to the suit schedule property shall be maintained by the parties for a period of eight weeks or till disposal of the application of the Petitioner under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of C.P.C., whichever is earlier. It is made clear that the trial court shall proceed purely on the merits of the matter without being influenced by the present interim arrangement made by this Court. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CMP stands disposed of. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis