Ms Konark Infra Solution Pvt Ltd vs Sanjukta Das And Others on 21 February, 2018
13. Coming to scan the decision vide 2014 (I) OLR 921 in
the case of Madhusudan Hota versus Ratnakar Hota this Court
finds, the fact involved in the above case is that the respondent in
the appeal decided therein as plaintiff filed T.S. No.452 of 2000 on
the file of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Balasore. Plaintiff
accompanied therein an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of
C.P.C. appearing as Misc. Case No.287 of 2000. Prayer for interim
injunction being rejected, the plaintiff preferred Miscellaneous
Appeal No.123 of 2001 wherein a direction was given to the parties
to maintain status quo in respect of the plots involved therein.
After disposal of the miscellaneous appeal an application under
Order 39 Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. was filed alleging that the appellant
and his sons disturb the status quo order. Order 39 Rule 2(a)
application ended with an observation that the appellant involved
therein violated the status quo order with an order of attachment
of a property for a period of one year and appeal was preferred to
the High Court under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. read with Section
104 of C.P.C. which was registered as F.A.O. No.151 of 2009. In
disposal of the F.A.O No.151 of 2009 this High Court in paragraph
no.6 of the said judgment held as follows: