Judgment:
ORDER
N. Prusty, J.
1. The petitioner, who is the defendant in C.S. No. 364 of 2003-I in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 26.4.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 37 of 2004 (Annexure-2) in dismissing his application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak dated 13.12.2005 in F.A.O. No. 31 of 2005 (Annexure-3) in confirming the above order of the learned trial Court under Annexure-2.
2. The Plaintiff/opposite parties at the time of filing of their suit, filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 277 of 2003. By order dated 23.4.2003 the learned trial Court had directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule land, which was made absolute by order dated 13.1.2004. In spite of the above order, since the petitioner, who is the defendant in Court below, proceeded with construction over the suit schedule land, an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code for violation of the order of status quo, was filed by the Plaintiff i.e. Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004 and after receipt of the notice in the said Misc. Case, the defendant/ petitioner appeared in the case and filed his objection inter alia stating therein that he is in no any way concerned with the title as well as possession of the suit schedule land and it is the D.R.D.A. on whose behalf he is looking after the construction of the shop rooms over the suit schedule land being the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The order of status quo dated 23.4.2003 was initially passed in his absence, without any notice to him, so also the subsequent order dated 13.1.2004 by which the interim order of status quo was made absolute and by that date also no notice was served on him.
3. With the above plea, the defendant/petitioner has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for variation of the status quo order which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 37 of 2004. The defendant had taken the self-same plea which he had taken in his objection filed to the petition under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his contention that no notice was received by him, he filed an affidavit of one Bijoy Kumar Mohapatra, who was one of the witnesses to the service of notice and examined him as P.W. 2. The defendant/petitioner himself was examined as P.W. 1. The Plaintiffs/opposite parties also examined two witnesses and both the parties have filed their respective documents in support of their contentions.
4. The learned trial Court, considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for both the parties as well as after scrutinizing the evidence on record, came to a finding that knowing fully well about the order of status quo the petitioner constructed the building in order to make the order infructuous. The petitioner has knowledge that an authorized construction is going on and in spite of the status quo order he tried his level best to complete the building and in that view of the matter, learned Court was not inclined to modify its order of status quo and accordingly rejected the petition filed by the present petitioner under Order 39 Rule 4 of the C.P. Code, since the same was devoid of any merit and needs no consideration. Challenging the above order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Bhadrak and the same was also dismissed on contest being devoid of any merit.
5. Heard Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
6. The contents of the writ petition as well as the impugned orders of both the learned Courts below clearly indicates that the petitioner has no right, title and interest over the suit schedule land. He was only looking after the construction over the suit land on behalf of the D.R.D.A., being the Sarpanch of the locality; as admitted by him. The D.R.D.A., who is the so-called owner of the land, who can be termed as a party aggrieved has not filed any application for variation of the order of status quo passed by the learned trial Court.
7. The petition under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. was filed by the petitioner, who is not the owner nor in possession of the land. As such, if the order of status quo is maintained throughout the proceeding, the defendant No. 1/petitioner shall not be prejudiced in any manner nor suffer any irreparable loss. The petition filed by a person, who does not have interest over the land, can never be termed as person aggrieved. Hence the petition moved at his instance need not be entertained.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties and after going through the contents of the writ petition as well as the impugned order of the learned Courts below, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or manifest error of law in the impugned order and as such I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
9. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, as it appears the defendants/petitioner has filed this petition under Order 39 Rule 4 as a pre defence to the Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004 which was filed by the Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2-A for violation of the order of status quo. It is well settled that a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2A shall run independently and be decided on its own merit in accordance with law, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence on record in this regard.
10. In that view of the matter, it is made clear that the learned trial Court while considering the application filed by the Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. against the defendant-petitioner, shall consider the matter independently and dispose of the same on its own merit, in accordance with law without being influenced by the earlier orders.
11. At this stage, learned Counsel for both the parties submit that since the suit is otherwise ready for hearing, the learned trial Court may be directed to proceed with the hearing of the suit and conclude the same as early as practicable.
12. In view of the above, the learned trial Court i.e. the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak is directed to expedite the trial of the suit and conclude the same as early as practicable, if the suit is otherwise ready for hearing in its chronological order and there is no other impediment for final disposal of the suit.
13. The writ petition is dismissed as the same is devoid of any merit, with the above observation. The Misc. Case accordingly stands disposed of.