ORDER 19.1.2009 — Heard 2. The judgment dtd. 3.1.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Cuttack in F.A.O. No. 115/2008 is assailed in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Opposite Party as plaintiff filed C.S. No. 178/2008 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ist Court, Cuttack, inter alia, praying for partition of the suit properties. The present peti¬tioner is the defendant in the said suit. In course of hearing, the present petitioner filed a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. alleging that the opposite party-plaintiff is trying to raise construction over the disputed properties with an intention to frustrate the decree. The said petition was registered as Interim Application No. 187/2008. Paragraph-4 of the petition reads as follows: “That on 17.4.2008 on all of sudden the opposite party with help of some higher goondas started digging the soil forcible to raise illegal construction on the suit land, the petitioner pro¬tested such illegal action of the opposite party but the opposite party did not stop his illegal action Finding no other alterna¬tive the petitioner is filing the present application prayer for grant of injunction against the opposite party restraining him from raising any construction over the suit land and from cutting and removing the valuable trees from the suit land.” 3. After receiving notice, the opposite party-plaintiff filed a counter affidavit taking the positive stand in paragraph-3 of the Objection that “the allegations made in the petition that the petitioner is trying to make construction over the suit schedule land and trying to remove the valuable trees are all false and frivolous having no iota of truth”. On the basis of the pleadings and after going through the affidavit the trial court by order 29.8.2008 relying upon the ratio of the decision reported in 75 (1975) CLT 194 directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit land till disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed F.A.O. No. 115/2008. Before the appellate court, however, a stand was taken to the effect that the house has been constructed substantially and thus any direction not to proceed with further construction would not only cause prejudice but also great inconvenience and irreparable loss. The plaintiff also took the stand that he will not claim any equity. Before the appellate court, however, a stand was taken to the effect that the house has been constructed substantially and thus any direction not to proceed with further construction would not only cause prejudice but also great inconvenience and irreparable loss. The plaintiff also took the stand that he will not claim any equity. In support of his submissions, several decisions were cited. Learned District Judge on being satisfied that the substantial construction has been made and unless the constructions are completed, it would cause irreparable loss and inconvenience. Relying upon the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Achutananda Mishra and others v. Pramila Mishra and others reported in 1999 (II) OLR-633 and other deci¬sions vacated the status quo order. The said order as stated earlier is assailed before this Court. 4. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the peti¬tioner, relying upon the averments made in the petition quoted supra as well as the reply given to the said allegation in the objection filed by the plaintiff submitted that on the date when Interim Application was filed, no construction was made. However, the plaintiff only in order to frustrate the defendants hurriedly raised certain constructions. This aspect was not kept in the mind by the learned District Judge. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that the lands in question are situated within the limits of Cuttack Municipal Corporation and as such any construc¬tion made without obtaining prior permission and/or sanction a plan being illegal needs to be demolished, and as such the Court may not permit further illegal construction. 5. On behalf of the opposite party-plaintiff, it is submitted that the lands in question are situated in the village and not under Cuttack Municipal Corporation. The same are part of Paramahansa Grama Panchayat. Be that as it may, no document was produced to reveal that as to whether any permission was accorded by any of the authorities to raise construction and/or a map or building plan was sanctioned. Law is well settled that any con¬struction made without obtaining due permission from the authori¬ties concerned is illegal and has to be demolished. 6. Be that as it may, no document was produced to reveal that as to whether any permission was accorded by any of the authorities to raise construction and/or a map or building plan was sanctioned. Law is well settled that any con¬struction made without obtaining due permission from the authori¬ties concerned is illegal and has to be demolished. 6. In view of the aforesaid clear position and as the said aspect was not argued before the learned District Judge, this Court feels that ends of justice and equity will be better served if the impugned order is set aside and F.A.O. No. 115/2008 is remitted back to the court of learned District Judge, Cuttack for de novo disposal. Both the parties are directed to produce mate¬rials before the learned District Judge and the learned District Judge is directed to give a finding as to whether any prior permission is necessary for raising the construction/constructing the building over the disputed plots and thereafter pass neces¬sary orders in accordance with law. 7. To avoid further controversy, this Court directs that status quo as on date shall be maintained in respect of the lands. The trial court is also directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months, if there will be no impediment. Ordered accordingly.