1984 (2) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....980 impleading the State of Orissa and Tahasildar, Kendrapara (petitioners in this case) as defendants, praying for declaration of their title and confirmation of their possession over the suit land or if found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, for restoration of possession to them and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land. They filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 C.P.C. praying that notice and order of injunction be issued simultaneously restraining the opposite parties not to dispossess the petitioners from the suit land and not to change the nature and character of the suit land. This application was numbered as Misc. Case No. 262 of 1980. They al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 80(2) C.P.C. that the disputed land was the subject matter of a proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act wherein notices were duly served on the opposite parties and since the said opposite parties were proceeding with a construction of a house on the suit site thereby blocking the public road, a notice under Section 8 of the Act was also issued to them and they had appeared in pursuance of the said notice and hence, there was absolutely no justification to pass an ex parte order of injunction against the petitioners and thereby permitting the opposite parties to continue with the offending construction. On these averments, they contended that the ex parte order of injunction was without jurisdiction and hence a n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioners are irrelevant considerations and cannot justify postponement of disposal of objection filed by the petitioners. Had the learned court below applied his mind to the objection filed by the petitioners, he would not have failed to notice the urgency of the matter and the necessity to dispose of the objection filed by the petitioners quickly, particularly in view of the contention that the ad interim order of injunction passed without service of notice to the petitioners is against the mandatory provisions of Section 80(2) C.P.C. While making a relaxation for entertaining a suit for injunction without a notice under Section 80(1) C.P.C., legislature has made it amply clear that no relief by interim order or otherwise can be gran....