JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made to the order dated 6.2.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in F.A.O No. 40 of 2005 dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner and confirming the order dated 24.9.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kujang in Interim Application No. 90 of 2005 (arising out of C.S. No. 79 of 2005). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Plaintiff-petitioner being the exclusive owner in possession of the suit property as per the sketch map vide Annexure-1 filed Civil Suit No. 79 of 2005 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kujang against the Defendant-opposite party for declaration of easementary right over the suit property and permanent injunction. The Petitioner was raising paddy crops since 1950 after getting the land from the Burdhawan Raja Estate. The ex-proprietor of Burdhawan Estate was inducted as tenants in respect of the fallow land. As per the prevailing practice of the Estate, the exproprietor gave consent to the Plaintiff to reclaim and cultivate the suit land. Accordingly, the Plaintiff by spending huge amount of money and labour, reclaimed the suit land and made it fit for cultivation. She also constructed a thatched house for storing the paddy crops and other implements which were used in the cultivation. The ex-proprietor accepted salami from the Plaintiff in recognition of tenancy right of the Plaintiff. After observing all formalities, the ex-proprietor executed a permanent lease deed (Jamabandi patta) in favour of the Plaintiff on 10.4.1952. Thereafter, Plaintiff paid rent to the estate and obtained rent receipts. However, the Plaintiff made an application to the ex-intermediary to issue certified copy of the Jamabandi patta and for demarcation of the suit land with the help of the estate Amin. The Burdhawan Estate gave notice to the Plaintiff to deposit the Amin fees for the said purpose. Accordingly, she deposited the amount and got the certified copy of the Jamabandi Patta (Hat Patta). Copy of the said notice along with Hat Patta has been annexed as Annexure-3 series to the writ petition. 3. While the matter stood thus, the Burdhawan Estate vested with the State of Orissa in the year 1952 free from all encumbrances. Accordingly, she deposited the amount and got the certified copy of the Jamabandi Patta (Hat Patta). Copy of the said notice along with Hat Patta has been annexed as Annexure-3 series to the writ petition. 3. While the matter stood thus, the Burdhawan Estate vested with the State of Orissa in the year 1952 free from all encumbrances. The suit property being tenanted in favour of the Plaintiff, the tenant ledger thereof was prepared in her favour. She submitted Ekpadia Jamabandi records and other connected records to the State of Orissa through its representative Tahasildar, Kujang for taking appropriate action u/s 8 of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act but due to some official dislocations the rent could not be collected from the Plaintiff. After vesting of the Estate, the Plaintiff approached the Tahasildar, Kujang to accept rent from her. Though the Tahasildar assured the Plaintiff to accept rent after tracing out the tenant ledger, for the reasons best known to him, the same was not done. During the year 1987-1988, the Government of Orissa accepted the tenancy right of the Plaintiff, executed the suit land and gave the balance area of Ac.12.50 decs. out of the suit plot No. 46 on long term lease for 15 years to Sri Sudarsan Samal and Ors. of village Gondakipur. Therefore, the Plaintiff possessed the suit land openly, peacefully, uninterruptedly and continuously. In the year 1991, the Tahasildar, Kujang on the basis of a wrong report of the Revenue Inspector, Nuagaon initiated Encroachment Case No. 2798 of 1991 in the name of Smt. Sunita Sahoo, the daughter-in-law of the Plaintiff treating the suit land as Government land and sent a notice to appear before him on 26.12.1991. On verification of the official records, the Plaintiff came to know that in the meantime Major Settlement operation had commenced in the suit village and due to the ignorance of the Plaintiff, who is an old lady, the land was wrongly recorded in the name of the State Government and the final ROR was published in the year 1984. Taking advantage of such wrong recording in the ROR, the Tahasildar, Kujang by order dated 26.12.1991 in Encroachment Case No. 2798 of 1991 issued notice and imposed penalty upon the daughter-in-law of the Plaintiff. Taking advantage of such wrong recording in the ROR, the Tahasildar, Kujang by order dated 26.12.1991 in Encroachment Case No. 2798 of 1991 issued notice and imposed penalty upon the daughter-in-law of the Plaintiff. After receiving notice, she made a representation and filed documentary evidence through her husband before the Tahasildar, Kujang to correct the ROR in favour of the Plaintiff and drop the encroachment proceeding. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.7.1996 in Encroachment Case No. 2798 of 1991 the Tahasildar, Kujang directed the record keeper to verify and report the corresponding sabik plots of Hal Plot No. 46 and 49. In the said proceeding as the Tahasildar, Kujang wrongly recorded the Plaintiff as late Chandramani Dei, the Plaintiff filed a representation to correct the same. While the said representation was pending awaiting the report of the record keeper, in the year. 2002 the Tahasildar, Kujang again initiated another Encroachment Case No. 613 of 2002 against the daughter-in-law of the Plaintiff and issued notice. After receiving notice, she appeared and reiterated the fact that the land belonged to her mother-in-law for which she is in possession of the disputed land. However, the Tahasildar, Kujang dropped the Encroachment Case No. 613 of 2002 by order dated 20.7.1996. The Tahasildar, Kujang in the year 2006 contradicting his own order dated 20.7.1996 served notice on the daughter-in-law of the Plaintiff in Certificate Case No. 1237 of 1998 for realization of penalty, imposed on her in the said Encroachment Case. In the said certificate case, the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner appeared and explained the above details. Therefore, the said certificate case was adjourned and referred to the headquarters for consideration as she was in possession of the disputed land. During the year 1998-1999, the Government of Orissa cancelled the long term lease of Sudarsana Samal and Ors. in respect of the land in plot No. 46 for installation of Oil Refinery Project in the said locality. The Government of Orissa while transferring its land to the Oil Refinery Project, they excluded the suit land from the acquisition. Admittedly, as a natural course, the excess rain water from the suit land was flowing towards west through the existed creeks under plot No. 46 to meet river Atharbanki which is flowing at a distance of 300 meters from the suit land. Admittedly, as a natural course, the excess rain water from the suit land was flowing towards west through the existed creeks under plot No. 46 to meet river Atharbanki which is flowing at a distance of 300 meters from the suit land. Due to such development of the acquired land by the sand filling, the height of the creeks under plot No. 46 along with other acquired land was raised upto 3 feet height and consequently the suit property became lower level than that of the vast acquired land of the Defendants-opposite parties. As a matter of necessary consequences, the direction of natural flow of rain water was obstructed by raising the height of the land of plot No. 46 by the Oil Refinery. The Defendants opposite parties in an extremely irresponsible manner cut a portion of its eastern boundary embankment just adjacent to the suit land to let the rain water flow from its acquired land to the agricultural land of the Plaintiff as a result of which during heavy rain, the suit property remained water logged damaging the agricultural crops raised on the suit land. The Plaintiff filed several objections before the authorities and made attempts to close up the portion of the boundary embankment which had been cut. No fruitful result having been received, the Plaintiff was compelled to file Civil Suit No. 78 of 2005 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kujang for the above claims against the Defendants 1 and 2 therein without giving due notice u/s 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Civil Judge by order dated 13.9.2005 in Title Suit No. 78 of 2005 directed to return the plaint to the Plaintiff with an endorsement on it for compliance of the provision of Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Civil Judge by order dated 13.9.2005 in Title Suit No. 78 of 2005 directed to return the plaint to the Plaintiff with an endorsement on it for compliance of the provision of Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. After complying with the said provision, the Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 79 of 2005 against Defendant No. 3 in Title Suit No. 78 of 2005, present opposite party, with the following prayers: (a) Let a permanent injunction be granted against the Defendant restraining him from causing any damage to the paddy crops of the Plaintiff over the suit property by allowing excess water to come over the suit property from the I.O.C.L. area; (b) Let a mandatory injunction be granted against the Defendant, directing him to provide a permanent drainage system to pass away the excess rain water from the suit land, substituting the obstruction of natural flow of water, along with other consequently reliefs. 4. Plaintiff-petitioner also filed another suit, i.e. Civil Suit No. 76 of 2006, in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kujang against the State of Orissa and Tahasildar, Kujang with the following prayers: (a) Let a decree be passed against the Defendants declaring the stithiban right, title and interest and possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land. (b) Let it be further declared that the R.O.R. for the suit property is wrong and misleading and the same needs correction by directing the Defendant No. 2 in terms of declaration of this Court as per para (a) to correct the Hal R.O.R. in favour of the Plaintiff. (c) Let a permanent injunction be granted against the Defendants restraining the Defendants/their agents/workmen and/or any person claiming under them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property by whatsoever means along with other consequential reliefs. 5. In Civil Suit No. 79 of 2005, the Plaintiff-petitioner filed Interim Application No. 90 of 2005. Said application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kujang by order dated 24.9.2005. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed FAG No. 192 of 2005 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack. Due to want of pecuniary jurisdiction, the said appeal was transferred to the court of learned Addl. Said application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kujang by order dated 24.9.2005. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed FAG No. 192 of 2005 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack. Due to want of pecuniary jurisdiction, the said appeal was transferred to the court of learned Addl. District Judge, Jagatsinghpur which was renumbered as FAO No. 40 of 2005 wherein it was stated.by the Petitioner that the trial court did not consider the long possession of the Plaintiff-petitioner over the suit property from 1950 till date thereby it failed to appreciate the prima facie case of the Plaintiff on the basis of possessing the title in respect of the suit land. As the rain water was logging in the suit land due to illegal action of the Defendants by cutting the eastern boundary embankment which is adjacent to the suit land thereby the Plaintiff suffered irreparable loss as the crops in the suit land was damaged and balance of convenience was in favour of the Plaintiff and she is in possession of the property and sustaining immense difficulties. However, the appellate court did not take into consideration the said facts though the Defendants in their objection categorically admitted on a spot verification and after receiving the representation from the Plaintiff that due to damage of the embankment, the extra water was flowing to the land of the Plaintiff as a natural phenomenon. Defendants opposite parties on 23.9.2005 filed a petition before the court seeking time to file document wherein they admitted that the Defendants opposite parties took initiative to repair the damaged embankment. However, both the courts below rejected the application of the Plaintiff for temporary injunction. Being aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed. 6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff-petitioner submitted that both the courts below failed to appreciate the fact of possession of the Plaintiff since 1950. The Plaintiff-petitioner has a possessory title holder. Therefore, the prima facie case is in her favour. Both the courts below came to a conclusion without considering the said prima facie case of the Plaintiff. 6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff-petitioner submitted that both the courts below failed to appreciate the fact of possession of the Plaintiff since 1950. The Plaintiff-petitioner has a possessory title holder. Therefore, the prima facie case is in her favour. Both the courts below came to a conclusion without considering the said prima facie case of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by both the courts below is vitiated as the Defendant-opposite party in his show cause admitted that after getting notice from the Plaintiff, IOCL-opposite party on 21.9.2005 made a physical verification on the spot and detected that the embankment was constructed over IOCL-opposite party's property adjacent to the proposed area for green belt and the suit properties have been breached due to unprecedented rain and the water from the IOCL-opposite party area is flowing towards the low laying land and excess water come over the suit property as there was no sewerage system towards Bay of Bengal and water from IOCL area is flowing towards the low laying land due to natural process. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Defendant-opposite party submitted that since both the courts below rejected the Plaintiff's application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court should not interfere with the impugned orders. 8. From the materials available on record and the submissions made by the parties, it appears that the Plaintiff Petitioner is all alone in possession of the suit land. The admitted fact is that the land adjacent to the suit land belongs to the Defendant and it is a high level land. The Defendant-company put boundary wall in the said land, the height whereof is three feet higher than the suit land and its eastern boundary embankment just adjacent to the suit land having been cut by the Defendants, the excess water is flowing to the Plaintiff's land as a natural phenomenon and damaging the Plaintiff's crops due to that excess water. 9. For better appreciation, Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC is extracted below: ORDER - XXXIX TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS and INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS Temporary Injunctions 1. 9. For better appreciation, Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC is extracted below: ORDER - XXXIX TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS and INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS Temporary Injunctions 1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted - Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise,- (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree; or (b) that the Defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to [defrauding] his creditors; (c) that the Defendant threatens to dispossess, the Plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the Plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] the Court may, by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property [or dispossession of the Plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the Plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. 2.xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied.) 10. As the aforesaid provisions contain that "the Court may make such other order for the purpose", this Court feels that it would be fit and proper to direct Defendant-opposite party (Paradeep Refinery Project, IOCL, Paradeep), to make arrangement to stop the excess water flowing from its land to the Plaintiff's land and see that the said water is harvested, as it is a big industry and intimate regarding steps taken by it for the said purpose to the trial court within a period of three months from the date of pronouncement of this order. It is directed accordingly. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.