Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 565 (ORI)

Iswar Ch. Swain v. Dillip Kumar Patnaik

2014-09-04

A.K.RATH, AMITAVA ROY

body2014
ORDER Heard, Ms, P, Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The instant petition alleges deliberate non - compliance of the interim order dated 27.08.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15423 of 2012. . 3. It is contended that by the said interim order it was directed that the auction involved be furthered, but no confirmation thereof would be made without the leave of the Court till 12.10.2012. 4. The record of W.P.(C) No. 15423 of 2012 would reveal that by subsequent orders dated 19.10.2012 and 14.12.2012 the term of interim restraint was extended up to 30.11.2012 and 28.02.2013 respectively. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite party had acted against the said restraint on 26.3.2013. According to the learned counsel, in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Charu Patnaik Vs. Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack, reported in 2007 (II) OLR 237 , even if the life of the interim order was not extended, the same continued to be operative until further orders or disposal of the petition. Therefore, in the instant case, though the interim order was case of the petitioner. So that as it may, it is apparent from not extended after 28.02.2013, the same continued to be operative and thus the action taken by the opposite party on 26.03.2013 is contemptuous. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on consideration of the pleaded averments made as well as on a perusal of the interim orders passed in W.P.(C) No. 15423 of 2012 referred to hereinabove, we a(e not inclined to sustain the plea of deliberate non-compliance thereof by the opposite party. 7. On a bare perusal of the decision rendered in Smt. Charu Patnaik (supra), in our opinion, it does not support the orders dated 27.08.2012, 19.10.2012 and 14.12.2012 that the interim restraint continued up to 28.02.2013 and thus we are of the considered opinion that in the instant case deliberate and willful violation of the interim order has not been made out. In that view of the matter, this petition is closed.