Prahallad Bhol vs Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije ... on 26 August, 2015

[Cites 11, Cited by 6]

Orissa High Court

Prahallad Bhol vs Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije ... on 26 August, 2015

Bench: A.K.Rath

                     HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK

                               WP(C) No.4660 of 2005

    In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
                                       -----------

    Prahallad Bhol                         ....                      Petitioner

                                     Versus

    Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije
    Srikhetra Marfat Rajgopal Ramanuj
    Das & another                          ....                    Opp. Parties


             For Petitioner            ... Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
                                         for Mr. L.Bhuyan, Advocate.

             For Opposite Parties      ... Mr. Sidhartha Ku. Mishra, Advocate
                                                                 (For O.P.2)


    PRESENT:

               THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH

                      Date of hearing and judgment: 26.08.2015

Dr. A.K.Rath, J       The instant challenge is to lacinate the order dated
    30.3.2005

passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in T.S. No.43/330 of 2004/2000. By the said order, the learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to stay the further proceeding of the suit till disposal of O.E.A. Appeal No.5 of 2001.

2. The petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of occupancy right, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any disturbance 2 in the suit schedule land in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri, which is registered as T.S. No.43/330 of 2004/2000. Admittedly, the suit schedule property stands recorded in the name of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu with intermediary status in the record-of-right. In O.E.A Case No.270 of 2000 filed by the Administrator, Shri Jagannath Temple, the petitioner had filed an objection before the Estate Abolition Collector-cum-Tahasildar, Puri, stating therein that he had acquired rayati right over the suit land. The Estate Abolition Collector settled the land in favour of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu marfat Parichalana Committee. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.E.A Appeal No.5 of 2001 before the Sub-Collector, Puri.

3. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed an application, vide Annexure-1, in the court of the learned trial court to stay further proceeding of the suit till disposal of O.E.A Appeal No.5 of 2001. The opposite party no.2, who is defendant no.2, filed an objection to the same. By order dated 30.3.2005 the learned trial court rejected the application.

4. Heard Mr. S.K. Das on behalf of Mr. L.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sidhartha Ku. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

5. The sole point that hinges for consideration of this Court is as to whether further proceeding in T.S. No.43/330 of 2004/2000 pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri can be stayed till disposal of O.E.A. Appeal No.5 of 2001 ?

6. The subject-matter of dispute is no more res integra. In Jayadev Padhan and others v. Managobinda Sathua, AIR 1967 Orissa 196, a suit was filed for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. Both the parties claimed tenancy rights over the suit schedule land under the Orissa Estates 3 Abolition Act. The Estate Abolition Officer recognized the title of the plaintiff. Assailing the same, the defendants had preferred an appeal, which was pending adjudication. An application was filed in the civil suit to stay the further proceeding till disposal of the O.E.A Appeal. The said petition having been rejected, the matter came to this Court. This Court held that for the ends of justice further proceeding in the suit should be stayed till disposal of the O.E.A. Appeal. The same view has been taken in Chandrasekhar Mohanty and others v. State of Orissa and others, 2007 (II) OLR 459.

7. In P. Nirathilingam v. Annaya Nadar and others, AIR 2002 SC 42 there was a proceeding under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act as well as civil suit for realisation of mortgage amount. Referring to Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, the apex Court held that further proceeding in the suit should be stayed till the Tahasildar disposes of the application filed by the debtor under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act.

8. In the instant case, the matter in issue is substantially the same in the suit as well as in the O.E.A. Appeal. Though Section 10 CPC strictly has no application as held by the apex Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, 2004 AIR SCW 6900, but in view of the nature of dispute and the prayer made in the suit, it will be appropriate to stay the further proceeding in the suit till disposal of O.E.A. Appeal No.5 of 2001 in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC.

9. In the ultimate analysis, the order dated 30.3.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in T.S. No.43/330 of 2004/2000 is quashed. The further proceeding of T.S. No.43/330 of 2004/2000 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri shall remain stayed till disposal of O.E.A. 4 Appeal No.5 of 2001 pending in the court Sub-Collector, Puri. This Court directs the Sub-Collector, Puri to dispose of O.E.A. Appeal No.5 of 2001 within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

The petition is allowed. No costs.

.............................

DR. A.K.RATH, J Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

The 26th August, 2015/Pradeep

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court