BABAJI CHARAN SAHOO v. GOVT. OF ODISHA, BHUBANESWAR
CMP/581/2026 · 2026-04-08
Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2345 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2345 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page 1 of 2.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.581 of 2026 Babaji Charan Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. - Suvashish Pattanaik -versus- Govt. of Odisha, represented through Secretary General Administration Department, Bhubaneswar and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER 08.04.2026
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-Petitioner in C.S. No.2104 of 2022, pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar has approached this Court with a prayer for interim protection till disposal of his application filed under Order-39, Rule- 1 & 2 of the CPC along with the suit.
4.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner as plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction along with the plaint the Petitioner moved an application under Order-39, Rule-1 & 2 of the CPC. He further contended that such application filed for grant of injunction relief has not been considered by the learned
Page 2 of 2. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar as the presiding officer of the Court is on deployment for S.R. duty in the State of West Bengal. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in the absence of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar no other officer has been assigned with the judicial work of the concerned court. He further submitted that since the hearing of the application for injunction is getting delayed, there is every likelihood that the Petitioner would be seriously prejudiced. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner be granted interim protection till consideration of his application under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of the CPC.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking note of the surrounding facts and circumstances, and keeping in view the development that the presiding officer of the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar is on S.R. duty, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to move an application before the learned District Judge, Khordha to assign the matter to any other competent Court for adjudication of the application of the Petitioner filed under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of the CPC. As an interim, it is
directed that status-quo with regard to the possession over the suit scheduled land shall be maintained for a period of four weeks.
6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CMP application stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout