M/S. KAPILAS CEMENT MANUFACTURING WORKS(KCMW), CUTTACK vs MY HOME INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD
- Court
- Odisha High Court
CMP/2118/2025
ODHC010955362025
2026:OHC:260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.2118 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010955362025
(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, 1950).
M/s. Kapilas Cement Manufacturing
Works (KCMW), Cuttack
…. Petitioner (s)
-versus-
My Home Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
Hyderabad
…. Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Ashok Parija, Senior Advocate
along with associates
Mr. Sarada Prasanna Sarangi, Advocate
Mr. Navneet Dadhichi, Advocate.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. S. P. Mishra, Senior Advocate along
with associates
Mr. Soumya Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Senior
Advocate along with associates
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-25.08.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-30.10.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1.
The Petitioner has instituted the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the judgment
dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Chandikhole in F.A.O. No. 62 of 2025, whereby the order dated
Signature Not Verified
Page 1
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
10.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Chandikhole in I.A. No. 44 of 2025 arising out of C.S. No. 98 of 2025,
rejecting the Petitioner's application for temporary injunction under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was
affirmed.
I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE :
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The Petitioner, M/s. Kapilas Cement Manufacturing Works
(KCMW), a unit of M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited,
formerly known as OCL India Limited, is engaged in the
manufacture of cement and has established its cement
manufacturing plant at Biswali, District Cuttack.
(ii) On 09.06.2006, IPICOL sanctioned the proposal for establishment
of the cement plant along with associated industrial activities,
including rail and road infrastructure. Pursuant thereto, a Lease
Deed dated 12.06.2008 was executed with the Odisha Industrial
Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO) in respect of
lands situated in Mouza Byree and Mouza Amiyajharial, under
Darpan Tahasil, in the district of Jajpur, for a period of 90 years.
According to the Petitioner, it has been in possession of the
leasehold lands since 2007–2008 and has established its cement
manufacturing plant along with associated industrial
infrastructure, including staff quarters, internal roads and private
railway sidings.
Signature Not Verified
Page 2
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
(iii) It is the case of the Petitioner that Plot No. 4228/4824, measuring
Ac.60.00, and Plot No. 4368 under Khata No. 1298, measuring
Ac.30.00, aggregating to Ac.90.00 in Mouza Byree, form part of its
leasehold land, over which it has constructed roads and railway
tracks for its own use, connecting its private railway siding with
the main railway line for transportation of raw materials and
dispatch of finished cement. The Petitioner further claims that the
internal kaccha road intersecting its private railway line at the
Jhatiapada level crossing is situated within its leasehold premises
and that the said crossing is a manned level crossing maintained
at its own expense. It is further asserted that a portion of the said
road forms part of the Wildlife Conservation Plan titled Jhatia
Passage for Elephants, relied on by the Petitioner in connection
with the environmental conditions governing its industrial
establishment, and that the use of the said passage is subject to
the conditions prescribed under the Plan.
(iv) The Opposite Party, M/s. My Home Industries Private Limited,
was subsequently allotted land measuring Ac.52.630 by IDCO for
establishment of a cement grinding unit at Village Byree, under
Darpan Tahasil, in the district of Jajpur. According to the
Opposite Party, the said allotment was made out of land earlier
surrendered by the Petitioner to IDCO. A Lease Agreement dated
26.09.2022 was executed between IDCO and the Opposite Party.
The dispute between the parties concerns the use of the existing
road and railway level crossing for movement of heavy vehicles,
Signature Not Verified
Page 3
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
machinery and construction materials to the industrial premises
of the Opposite Party.
(v) On 23.09.2025, the Opposite Party submitted a grievance petition
before the Collector and District Magistrate, Jajpur, seeking
permission to use the alleged public road, contending that the
Petitioner had obstructed the movement of its vehicles through
the railway level crossing. The Petitioner, on being called upon to
show cause, submitted its reply on 17.10.2025, contending, inter
alia, that the road in dispute was an internal kaccha road running
within its leasehold premises and was never a public road meant
for public use. It was further contended that the railway crossing
was categorised as a 'D' level crossing meant for pedestrians and
cattle and that frequent and unregulated movement of heavy
vehicles, including trucks, cranes and other machinery, would
cause damage to its railway infrastructure. The Petitioner also
contended that the issue concerning internal roads within the
leasehold area was already sub judice between the Petitioner and
IDCO.
(vi) The Collector and District Magistrate, Jajpur, by order dated
25.10.2025, allowed the grievance petition of the Opposite Party,
observing that the kaccha road had been in existence for a long
period and was being used by the villagers of Jhatiapada. The
Collector further observed that the road passing through the
railway crossing was the only available access to the land allotted
to the Opposite Party. Accordingly, for the larger interest of
Signature Not Verified
Page 4
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
public demand and industrialisation, the Collector directed that
the railway crossing would also be used by IDCO and IDCO-
allotted industries and that the Petitioner should not obstruct the
passage of vehicles over the said road. The Opposite Party was
directed to ensure that the railway line was not damaged and to
take necessary precautions, including consultation with the
Railway authorities in the event of transit of heavy machinery.
The Superintendent of Police, Jajpur and the Tahasildar, Darpan
were directed to ensure implementation of the said directions.
(vii) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 25.10.2025, the
Petitioner instituted C.S. No. 98 of 2025 before the learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Chandikhole, seeking, inter alia, a decree
of declaration of its right, title and interest over the suit schedule
property, declaration that the order dated 25.10.2025 passed by
the Collector, Jajpur was illegal and liable to be set aside, and
permanent injunction restraining the Opposite Party from
entering upon the suit schedule property and interfering with its
peaceful possession and enjoyment. Along with the suit, the
Petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, registered as I.A. No. 44 of
2025, seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the
Opposite Party, its employees, agents and contractors from
entering upon and using the suit schedule property till disposal
of the suit.
Signature Not Verified
Page 5
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
(viii) The Opposite Party appeared through caveat and filed its
objection to the application for temporary injunction along with
supporting documents. On hearing the parties, the learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Chandikhole, by order dated 10.11.2025,
dismissed I.A. No. 44 of 2025, observing that although the
Petitioner had raised an arguable case, the same was a matter to
be adjudicated during trial upon full evidence and not at the
interlocutory stage. The learned Court further held that the
balance of convenience was in favour of the Opposite Party and
that the Petitioner had failed to establish irreparable injury
warranting grant of temporary injunction.
(ix) Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2025, the Petitioner
preferred F.A.O. No. 62 of 2025 before the learned Additional
District Judge, Chandikhole, challenging the refusal of temporary
injunction. On consideration of the materials on record and the
submissions advanced by the parties, the learned Appellate
Court, by judgment dated 16.12.2025, dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned
Appellate Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the
discretionary order refusing temporary injunction.
(x) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 16.12.2025 and
the order dated 10.11.2025, the Petitioner has approached this
Court by way of the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
Page 6
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
UBMISSIONS N EHALF F HE ETITIONER
II. S O B O T P :
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) It was submitted that the impugned order dated 10.11.2025
passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandikhole
and the judgment dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Chandikhole were illegal, arbitrary
and unsustainable in law, having been passed without proper
consideration of the pleadings, documents and materials placed
on record by the Petitioner. It was contended that both the Courts
below had failed to appreciate the nature of the Petitioner's
leasehold rights, the character of the disputed road and railway
crossing, and the consequences arising from their use by the
Opposite Party for industrial transportation. The learned
Appellate Court, despite recognising that refusal of temporary
injunction by ignoring relevant documentary evidence could
constitute an arbitrary or perverse exercise of discretion, failed to
examine the documents relied on by the Petitioner and affirmed
the order of the learned Trial Court.
(ii) It was further submitted that the Petitioner was the lawful lessee
of the suit schedule property pursuant to the Lease Deed dated
12.06.2008 executed with IDCO and had developed its industrial
premises, including internal roads and private railway
infrastructure, at its own expense. The disputed railway level
crossing was situated within the land allotted to the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Page 7
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
and formed part of the railway siding constructed for the
operation of its cement manufacturing unit. It was contended that
the Collector, Jajpur, by order dated 25.10.2025, had permitted the
Opposite Party to enter and use the Petitioner's leasehold
premises and privately constructed railway crossing without its
consent. According to the Petitioner, the Collector was not vested
with any statutory authority to create or confer a right of access
over its private land and infrastructure in favour of another
industrial undertaking. Such an administrative direction was
asserted to be an unlawful interference with the Petitioner's rights
of possession and enjoyment arising from the Lease Deed.
(iii) It was submitted that the disputed pathway was never a public
vehicular road. Reliance was placed on the Detailed Project
Report submitted to the Railway authorities in 2006 and the in-
principle approval accorded by East Coast Railway on 16.10.2006,
wherein the existence of a two-metre-wide kaccha pathway used
by villagers, without movement of vehicular traffic, had been
specifically recorded. It was contended that the Jhatiapada
railway crossing was categorised as a 'D' level crossing intended
for pedestrians and cattle and was maintained by the Petitioner
at its own expense. The existence of a pathway traditionally used
by villagers could not, according to the Petitioner, be construed
as conferring on the Opposite Party a right to ply heavy vehicles,
construction machinery and industrial materials through the
Petitioner's premises. It was specifically clarified that the
Signature Not Verified
Page 8
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
Petitioner did not seek to obstruct the passage of villagers or the
movement of cattle and that the relief sought was confined to
restraining the Opposite Party from using the railway crossing
and internal premises for industrial and commercial
transportation.
(iv) It was further contended that the disputed passage was also
subject to restrictions arising from the Wildlife Conservation Plan
titled Jhatia Passage for Elephants , implemented pursuant to the
environmental conditions governing the Petitioner's industrial
establishment. The said Plan contemplated designated passages
across the railway siding for movement of elephants and other
wild animals and prescribed regulated use of the area, including
restrictions during nighttime. It was submitted that unrestricted
movement of heavy industrial vehicles through the said passage
would be inconsistent with the conditions of the Wildlife
Conservation Plan and would interfere with the movement of
wildlife. It was asserted that the Collector, Jajpur, had failed to
consider these material circumstances while permitting industrial
vehicular movement through the disputed crossing.
(v) It was further submitted that the Petitioner's railway siding had
been constructed and operated pursuant to agreements and
approvals obtained from the Railway authorities and that the
Petitioner was bound to comply with the conditions imposed
thereunder. It was contended that frequent passage of heavy
vehicles, cranes and machinery over the railway crossing would
Signature Not Verified
Page 9
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
expose the railway tracks to damage, interfere with the
transportation of raw materials and finished cement, and
potentially disrupt the operation of the manufacturing unit. It
was further asserted that the Petitioner could incur contractual
and statutory liability, including consequences under Section 151
of the Railways Act, 1989, in the event of damage or obstruction
affecting the railway infrastructure. It was submitted that the
Opposite Party had not obtained the requisite consultation or
permission from the Railway authorities for movement of heavy
machinery, notwithstanding the express condition imposed by
the Collector in the order dated 25.10.2025. Both the Courts below
were stated to have failed to examine the relevant railway
agreements and the consequences of non-compliance with their
conditions.
(vi) It was submitted that the Collector, Jajpur, had proceeded on an
erroneous assumption that the disputed railway crossing
constituted the only available access to the industrial premises of
the Opposite Party. According to the Petitioner, an alternative
route through Village Mania was available for transportation of
machinery, construction materials and other requirements to the
Opposite Party's premises. Reliance was placed on the site map
and photographs filed by way of additional affidavit to
demonstrate the existence and use of such alternative access. It
was further contended that, following the interim order dated
06.01.2026 passed in the present proceeding, the Opposite Party
Signature Not Verified
Page 10
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
had continued its construction activities for several months by
using the alternative route. It was submitted that these
circumstances contradicted the assertion that the Opposite
Party's land was entirely landlocked or that access through the
Petitioner's railway crossing was indispensable. It was asserted
that the Opposite Party sought to use the Petitioner's premises
merely because the disputed route was shorter and more
convenient.
(vii) It was further submitted that the Opposite Party had obtained
allotment of Ac.52.630 of land from IDCO in September 2022 on
an 'as is where is' basis, whereas the Petitioner had developed its
industrial establishment and associated railway infrastructure
much earlier. It was contended that any difficulty arising from the
location of the Opposite Party's allotted land, including its
proximity to Revenue Forest land, could not create an entitlement
to enter upon the Petitioner's leasehold premises. According to
the Petitioner, the Opposite Party ought to have pursued the
statutory procedure for obtaining access through the adjoining
forest land, wherever permissible, instead of seeking an
administrative direction authorising passage over the Petitioner's
land. It was submitted that the Collector could not have created a
third-party commercial interest over the Petitioner's leasehold
property merely to facilitate the industrial activities of the
Opposite Party.
Signature Not Verified
Page 11
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
(viii) It was submitted that the learned Trial Court had failed to
properly apply the settled requirements governing temporary
injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Although the
learned Trial Court had acknowledged that the Petitioner raised
an arguable case, it declined injunction principally upon the
finding that the disputed road provided the only available access
to the Opposite Party's industrial premises. It was contended that
the said finding was based substantially on the order dated
25.10.2025 passed by the Collector, without independently
examining the Petitioner's lease documents, Railway DPR,
relevant agreements, site map and other materials. It was further
contended that the learned Trial Court had erroneously
proceeded on the footing that any damage to the railway tracks
could be adequately compensated in monetary terms, without
appreciating the possibility of disruption of the Petitioner's
manufacturing operations and the contractual and regulatory
consequences arising from damage to the railway infrastructure.
(ix) It was further contended that the balance of convenience was in
favour of the Petitioner, which had been in possession of the
leasehold property and had operated its industrial establishment
for several years. It was submitted that permitting heavy
industrial traffic over the railway siding and internal road would
interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful enjoyment of its premises
and expose its railway infrastructure to damage, potentially
affecting the transportation of clinker and other raw materials
Signature Not Verified
Page 12
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
and thereby disrupting the manufacturing and supply of cement.
Such injury, according to the Petitioner, could not be adequately
compensated by damages. It was asserted that the Courts below
had attached undue significance to the commercial inconvenience
alleged by the Opposite Party while failing to consider the nature
and extent of the injury apprehended by the Petitioner. The
Petitioner maintained that it had satisfied the requirements of
prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury
necessary for grant of temporary injunction.
(x) Reliance was also placed on the interim order dated 06.01.2026
passed by this Court in the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition,
whereby the Opposite Party was restrained from using the
railway level crossing situated on the Petitioner's land for
industrial purposes till 03.02.2026. It was submitted that this
Court had taken note of the location of the crossing within the
Petitioner's allotted land, the construction of the railway line for
the Petitioner's own use and the existing right of communication
of local tribal inhabitants through the crossing. According to the
Petitioner, the interim arrangement recognised the distinction
between the traditional passage of villagers and the use of the
crossing by the Opposite Party for industrial purposes. It was
further contended that the continuation of the Opposite Party's
construction activities through an alternative route following the
said order demonstrated that restraint upon industrial use of the
Signature Not Verified
Page 13
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
disputed crossing would not deprive the Opposite Party of access
to its premises.
(xi) In response to the allegation that the Petitioner had suppressed
material facts concerning C.S. No. 139 of 2024 and the
proceedings arising therefrom, the learned counsel submitted
that the pendency of the said litigation had been specifically
disclosed in paragraph 8(iii) of the plaint in C.S. No. 98 of 2025. It
was contended that the earlier suit concerned the decision of
IDCO to widen and upgrade the road passing through the
Petitioner's leasehold land, whereas the present suit arose from
the order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the Collector, Jajpur,
permitting the Opposite Party to use the disputed railway
crossing. It was submitted that the two proceedings arose from
distinct causes of action and that the allegation of suppression of
material facts or failure to approach the Court with clean hands
was therefore denied.
(xii) It was submitted that the Courts below had failed to exercise their
discretion judicially and had overlooked material documents and
relevant considerations bearing on the Petitioner's rights and the
requirements for grant of temporary injunction. It was
accordingly submitted that the judgment dated 16.12.2025 passed
in F.A.O. No. 62 of 2025 and the order dated 10.11.2025 passed in
I.A. No. 44 of 2025 were liable to be set aside and that the
Petitioner was entitled to an order restraining the Opposite Party
Signature Not Verified
Page 14
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
from using the disputed road and railway level crossing for
industrial transportation pending adjudication of the suit.
III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTY :
4. Per contra , the learned counsel for the Opposite Party made the
following submissions:
(i) It was submitted that the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition
was devoid of merit and did not warrant interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Chandikhole, by order dated 10.11.2025, had
rejected the Petitioner's application for temporary injunction after
considering the pleadings, documents and materials on record,
and the said order had been affirmed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Chandikhole, in F.A.O. No. 62 of 2025 by judgment
dated 16.12.2025. It was contended that both the Courts below
had concurrently found that the essential requirements for grant
of temporary injunction were not satisfied. Reliance was placed
on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Nandi Infrastructure
Corridor Enterprises Ltd. and Another v. B. Gurappa Naidu and
1 2
Others and Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel , to contend
that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was limited and
corrective in nature and could not be exercised as an appellate
jurisdiction for reappreciation of evidence or substitution of
factual findings. It was submitted that the Courts below had
1
2026 SCC Online SC 745.
2
(2022) 4 SCC 181.
Signature Not Verified
Page 15
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
exercised jurisdiction duly vested in them and that no
jurisdictional error, gross abuse of jurisdiction, perversity or
grave dereliction of duty had been demonstrated to justify
interference.
(ii) It was further submitted that the land measuring Ac.52.630
allotted to the Opposite Party by IDCO for establishment of a
cement grinding unit at Village Byree formed part of the land
earlier surrendered by the Petitioner to IDCO. Pursuant to the
allotment, a Lease Agreement dated 26.09.2022 had been
executed between IDCO and the Opposite Party for a period of
75 years. According to the Opposite Party, the allotted land was
landlocked on all sides and the only available access from NH-16
was through an existing kaccha public road which had been used
by villagers of the locality for several decades, even prior to the
grant of lease in favour of the Petitioner in 2008. The said road
was described as an 'Estate Road' in the Lease Agreement
executed between IDCO and the Opposite Party. Reliance was
placed upon Clause 19 of the said Agreement, requiring the lessee
to construct and maintain an access road leading from the Estate
Road to its allotted land. It was contended that the Opposite Party
had accordingly constructed an access road connecting its
industrial premises to the existing village road.
(iii) It was submitted that the private railway siding constructed by
the Petitioner from Byree Railway Station to its cement plant
intersected the existing village road and that a manned level
Signature Not Verified
Page 16
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
crossing had been constructed at the intersection for regulating
vehicular movement. It was contended that the railway crossing
did not extinguish the pre-existing public character of the road or
the customary rights of the villagers and other users. The road
was stated to provide access not only to the Opposite Party's
industrial premises but also to the tribal inhabitants of Jhatiapada
and other surrounding areas. According to the Opposite Party,
the Petitioner had taken advantage of the railway crossing by
lowering the gates and obstructing the movement of vehicles
belonging to the Opposite Party, thereby impeding the
construction and development of its industrial project. Such
obstruction was alleged to have arisen from business rivalry
between the two industrial undertakings.
(iv) It was submitted that the Opposite Party had accordingly
approached the Collector and District Magistrate, Jajpur, by
grievance petition dated 23.09.2025, seeking permission for
movement of its vehicles through the existing road and railway
crossing. The Collector, after field verification and hearing the
parties, passed a speaking order dated 25.10.2025 permitting use
of the said crossing by IDCO and IDCO-allotted industries in the
larger public and industrial interest. It was contended that the
Collector had taken a balanced approach by protecting the
interests of the local inhabitants, the industrial establishments
and the railway infrastructure. The Opposite Party was
specifically directed to ensure that no damage was caused to the
Signature Not Verified
Page 17
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
railway line, to take necessary precautions and to consult the
Railway authorities in the event of transit of heavy machinery,
including undertaking strengthening of the railway line
wherever required. It was asserted that the said order had been
passed after considering the ground realities and that the
Petitioner could not selectively obstruct the existing road merely
on account of its railway siding intersecting the same.
(v) It was further contended that the order dated 25.10.2025 passed
by the Collector continued to remain in force and had not been
declared illegal or inoperative by any competent Court. Although
the Petitioner had challenged the said order in C.S. No. 98 of 2025
and had impleaded the Collector as Defendant No. 2 in the suit,
the Collector had not been impleaded in I.A. No. 44 of 2025. It was
submitted that the relief of temporary injunction sought against
the Opposite Party would, in effect, keep the Collector's order in
abeyance without any express prayer for staying its operation. It
was contended that the question concerning the Collector's
jurisdiction and the legality of the order dated 25.10.2025 required
adjudication in the suit upon evidence and could not be
conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage. It was further
submitted that permitting such adjudication at the stage of
temporary injunction would amount to conducting a mini-trial
on issues reserved for final determination.
(vi) It was further submitted that the Petitioner was not entitled to the
equitable relief of temporary injunction, having failed to
Signature Not Verified
Page 18
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
approach the Court with clean hands. It was alleged that the
Petitioner had suppressed material particulars concerning C.S.
No. 139 of 2024 instituted against IDCO before the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Chandikhole, wherein the decision of
IDCO to widen and upgrade the existing village road for
providing access to NH-16 had been challenged. The application
for temporary injunction in the said suit, registered as I.A. No. 91
of 2024, had been dismissed by order dated 03.04.2025, and the
said order had been affirmed in F.A.O. No. 53 of 2025 by
judgment dated 27.10.2025. It was contended that the limited
reference to the pendency of those proceedings in paragraph 8(iii)
of the plaint in C.S. No. 98 of 2025 did not constitute full and
proper disclosure of the earlier litigation, its subject matter or the
orders passed therein. Reliance was placed on M/s. Gujarat
3
Bottling Co. Ltd. and Others v. Coca Cola Company and Others
to contend that grant of temporary injunction was an equitable
and discretionary relief and that the conduct of the party seeking
such relief was a relevant consideration.
(vii) It was further alleged that the Petitioner had attempted to
misrepresent the effect of the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in
W.P.(C) No. 28490 of 2025, whereby status quo regarding
possession of certain portions of land had been directed to be
maintained. According to the Opposite Party, the said proceeding
concerned land measuring Ac.7.70 sought to be resumed by
3
(1995) 5 SCC 545.
Signature Not Verified
Page 19
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
IDCO for development of a railway corridor and was distinct
from the dispute concerning use of the existing village road and
railway level crossing in C.S. No. 98 of 2025. It was contended that
the Petitioner had sought to rely upon the said order as though it
related to the self-same subject matter, thereby misrepresenting
material circumstances before the Court. Such conduct was
alleged to constitute suppression of material facts and forum
shopping.
(viii) It was submitted that the Petitioner had failed to establish a prima
facie case warranting temporary injunction. It was contended that
the Petitioner had sought a declaration of ownership and right,
title and interest over leasehold properties measuring
approximately Ac.90.00, whose valuation exceeded
Rs.4,50,00,000/-, while valuing the suit at Rs.5,000/-. According to
the Opposite Party, the suit had been arbitrarily and
unreasonably undervalued, raising an objection concerning the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. It was further
submitted that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC had
been filed for rejection of the plaint on that ground. It was also
contended that the suit schedule property had not been
sufficiently identified by a sketch map delineating the particular
portion allegedly entered upon by the Opposite Party, thereby
attracting the requirements of Order VII Rule 3 CPC. These
circumstances were relied upon to dispute the existence of a
prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Page 20
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
(ix) It was further submitted that the apprehended damage to the
Petitioner's railway siding did not constitute irreparable injury
within the meaning of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Reliance
4
was placed on Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh to contend that
existence of a prima facie case alone was insufficient for grant of
temporary injunction and that the applicant was additionally
required to establish balance of convenience and irreparable
injury. It was submitted that the Petitioner's apprehension of
damage from movement of heavy vehicles was speculative and
unsupported by sufficient material demonstrating the likelihood
of such damage. It was contended that any actual damage to the
railway tracks or other infrastructure could be established
through evidence during trial and, if proved, adequately
compensated by damages. The Opposite Party further asserted
that the Railway authorities had not objected to the use of the
crossing and that the Petitioner could not rely upon apprehended
railway safety concerns to justify complete obstruction of an
existing village road.
(x) It was submitted that the balance of convenience was
overwhelmingly in favour of the Opposite Party. According to
the Opposite Party, the existing village road connecting its
allotted land to NH-16 was the only available approach to its
industrial premises and was also used by the inhabitants of the
nearby tribal hamlets. Grant of injunction would obstruct the
4
(1992) 1 SCC 719.
Signature Not Verified
Page 21
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
transportation of construction materials and machinery, disrupt
the establishment of the proposed cement grinding unit and
adversely affect the movement of villagers and other industrial
users. It was further contended that the Opposite Party was under
contractual obligations to undertake construction and allied
activities within the stipulated period under its Lease Agreement
with IDCO, and obstruction of the access road would expose it to
serious consequences under the said Agreement. The
comparative hardship likely to be suffered by the Opposite Party
upon grant of injunction was therefore stated to be substantially
greater than any apprehended injury to the Petitioner upon its
refusal.
(xi) The learned counsel disputed the Petitioner's contention that an
alternative route was available to the Opposite Party through
Village Mania. It was submitted that the Collector, Jajpur, had
already recorded a finding in the order dated 25.10.2025 that no
other road was available connecting the Opposite Party's land to
the National Highway. The site map and photographs relied
upon by the Petitioner were disputed as documents prepared for
the purposes of the present litigation. It was further contended
that the Petitioner was attempting to introduce additional
documents and factual assertions through affidavits filed before
this Court which did not form part of the records before the
learned Trial Court or the learned Appellate Court. According to
the Opposite Party, such an attempt to reopen disputed questions
Signature Not Verified
Page 22
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
of fact and supplement the earlier record was impermissible in
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was
submitted that the existence or otherwise of an alternative route
was a disputed factual matter requiring evidence and could not
be determined at the supervisory stage.
(xii) The learned counsel further relied upon the terms of the Lease
Deed dated 12.06.2008 executed between IDCO and the
Petitioner. Particular reliance was placed upon Clause 20,
whereby existing customary rights of the Government and public
roads and paths through or bounding the leased land were
expressly reserved and were not to be affected by the lease.
Reference was also made to Clause 36, which contemplated
facilitation of small and medium industries and promotion of
ancillary and downstream industrial activities, and Clause 50,
requiring compliance with the provisions of the Orissa Industrial
Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980 and the Rules
and Regulations framed thereunder. It was contended that the
Petitioner could not claim exclusive control over an existing
public road in derogation of the rights expressly reserved under
the Lease Deed.
(xiii) It was further submitted that Sections 14 and 15 of the Orissa
Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980
conferred broad statutory powers upon IDCO to promote rapid
and orderly industrial development, provide common facilities
and amenities, and undertake works necessary for industrial
Signature Not Verified
Page 23
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
infrastructure. According to the Opposite Party, development of
a common industrial corridor and provision of access to
industrial units were within the statutory functions of IDCO, and
the Petitioner's obstruction of the existing road frustrated the
larger public and industrial interest underlying the allotment and
development of industrial land in the area.
(xiv) The learned counsel further referred to the subsequent order
dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Collector, Jajpur, directing
implementation of the earlier order dated 25.10.2025 and
requiring the Petitioner not to obstruct movement of vehicles
carrying construction materials to the Opposite Party's project
site. It was submitted that the Tahasildar, Darpan, in the presence
of the concerned revenue and police authorities, had taken steps
for implementation of the Collector's directions on 23.12.2025.
According to the Opposite Party, these developments
demonstrated the continued obstruction caused by the Petitioner
despite the directions issued by the competent administrative
authority. The Opposite Party reiterated that the dispute had
arisen from commercial rivalry and that the Petitioner's attempt
to prevent access through the existing village road was intended
to impede the construction and functioning of a competing
industrial establishment.
(xv) It was submitted that the Petitioner had failed to establish any
ground warranting interference with the concurrent findings of
the Courts below. It was contended that the Petitioner had not
Signature Not Verified
Page 24
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
satisfied the requirements of prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable injury, and that the refusal of
temporary injunction represented a proper exercise of judicial
discretion. The impugned orders were stated to disclose no
jurisdictional error or perversity justifying interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, dismissal of
the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition was sought.
INDINGS F HE EARNED DDITIONAL ISTRICT UDGE
IV. F O T L A D J ,
C HANDIKHOLE
:
5. The learned Additional District Judge, Chandikhole, while dismissing
F.A.O. No. 62 of 2025 by judgment dated 16.12.2025, recorded the
following findings:
(i) The learned Appellate Court observed that grant of temporary
injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was governed
by three essential requirements, namely, existence of a prima
facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the applicant and
likelihood of irreparable injury in the event of refusal of
injunction. It further observed that temporary injunction being an
equitable and discretionary relief, the conduct of the party
seeking such relief was also a relevant consideration.
(ii) The learned Appellate Court held that an appeal against an order
granting or refusing temporary injunction was an appeal on
principle and that the Appellate Court ought not to interfere with
the exercise of discretion by the Court of first instance merely to
substitute its own discretion. Interference was warranted where
Signature Not Verified
Page 25
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
such discretion had been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or
perversely, or where the Court had ignored the settled principles
of law governing grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. It
further observed that refusal of temporary injunction by ignoring
relevant documentary evidence could constitute an arbitrary or
perverse exercise of discretion.
(iii) Upon consideration of the materials, supporting documents and
submissions advanced by the parties, the learned Appellate
Court found that the Petitioner had failed to satisfy all three
essential requirements for grant of temporary injunction. It held
that the Petitioner had not established a case warranting exercise
of the discretionary jurisdiction in its favour.
(iv) The learned Appellate Court further observed that, apart from the
three essential requirements, the conduct of the applicant was
required to be considered while granting equitable relief. Taking
into account the submissions of the parties, the supporting
documents and the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.
28490 of 2025, the learned Appellate Court concluded that the
Petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands.
(v) The learned Appellate Court accordingly held that the learned
Trial Court had considered the matter in its proper perspective
and that the exercise of discretion in refusing temporary
injunction did not suffer from any inherent infirmity warranting
appellate interference. Consequently, F.A.O. No. 62 of 2025 was
dismissed on contest without costs, and the order dated
Signature Not Verified
Page 26
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
10.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Chandikhole in I.A. No. 44 of 2025 was affirmed.
V. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS :
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
7.
The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition requires determination of the
limited question whether the learned Additional District Judge,
Chandikhole, erred in affirming the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by
the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandikhole, rejecting the
Petitioner's application for temporary injunction, and whether the
concurrent orders are vitiated by any infirmity warranting interference
by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
8. Before proceeding to examine the impugned orders, it is necessary to
bear in mind the limited nature of the jurisdiction invoked. It is well
settled that in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court
cannot sit in appeal over the correctness of the orders passed by the
courts and tribunals over which it exercises the power of
superintendence. The scope of such jurisdiction was elucidated by the
Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another v. Rajendra
5
Shankar Patil. The relevant observations are replicated hereinunder:
“(c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise
of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or
courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power,
5
(2010) 8 SCC 329.
Signature Not Verified
Page 27
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or
tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative
statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would
also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by
the High Court.
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in
exercise of their power of superintendence have been
repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High
Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh [AIR
1954 SC 215] and the principles in Waryam Singh [AIR
1954 SC 215] have been repeatedly followed by subsequent
Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this
Court.
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh [AIR 1954 SC
215] , followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere
in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate
to it, “within the bounds of their authority”.
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals
and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in
them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction
which is vested in them.
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High
Court can interfere in exercise of its power of
superintendence when there has been a patent perversity
in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it
or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of
justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been
flouted.
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court
cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just
because another view than the one taken by the tribunals
or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other
words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.”
Signature Not Verified
Page 28
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
6
9. Similarly, in M/s. Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel , the Supreme
Court reiterated the principles governing the exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and observed
as follows:
“15. …The High Court exercising supervisory
jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to
reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the
determination under challenge is based. Supervisory
jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a
legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be
supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own
decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior
court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the
nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave
dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of
fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under
Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like
when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is
so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to
such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to.
It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be
exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.”
10. The aforesaid principles have been recently reiterated by the Supreme
Court in Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. and Another v.
7
B. Gurappa Naidu and Others wherein it was observed that the High
Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227,
cannot act as a Court of first appeal to reappreciate evidence or
substitute its own conclusions for those of the subordinate Court. The
Supreme Court further observed that such jurisdiction is corrective in
6
(2022) 1 SCC 181.
7
2026 SCC Online SC 745.
Signature Not Verified
Page 29
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
nature and is to be exercised sparingly, particularly where there is an
unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, gross abuse of jurisdiction or
unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in a subordinate
Court.
11.
In the present case, the orders under challenge arise from the rejection
of an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1
and 2 CPC. It is, therefore, necessary to advert to the settled principles
governing the grant of such relief. Rule 1 of Order XXXIX empowers
the Court to grant temporary injunction where the property in dispute
is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated, or where the
Defendant threatens to dispossess the Plaintiff or otherwise cause
injury to the Plaintiff in relation to the property in dispute. Rule 2 of
Order XXXIX further provides for grant of temporary injunction to
restrain the commission or continuance of a breach of contract or other
injury of a like nature.
12. The grant of temporary injunction is an equitable and discretionary
relief governed by three essential requirements, namely, the existence
of a prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the applicant
and the likelihood of irreparable injury in the event of refusal of such
relief.
8
13. In Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh , the Supreme Court explained that
the existence of a prima facie case, though necessary, does not alone
entitle a party to temporary injunction. The Court must further consider
whether refusal of the relief would occasion an injury incapable of
8
(1992) 1 SCC 719.
Signature Not Verified
Page 30
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
adequate compensation and whether the balance of convenience
favours the party seeking protection.
14. Since the order refusing temporary injunction in the present case was
subsequently challenged in appeal, the principles governing appellate
interference with the exercise of discretion by the Court of first instance
are also relevant.
9
15. In Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. , the Supreme Court observed
that an appeal against the exercise of discretion is an appeal on
principle. An Appellate Court would not ordinarily substitute its own
discretion for that of the Trial Court merely because it might have
arrived at a different conclusion. Interference is warranted where the
discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, or
where the Trial Court has ignored the settled principles of law
governing the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions.
16. The present dispute concerning the nature and extent of the use of the
pathway passing through the Petitioner’s railway level crossing must
be examined in the light of the aforesaid principles. It is noted that the
Petitioner is challenging the movement of heavy vehicles, construction
machinery and industrial materials belonging to the Opposite Party
through the said crossing. It does not, however, dispute the pathway’s
use by the local villagers for pedestrian movement and passage of
cattle. In such circumstances, at the interlocutory stage, the question for
determination is whether the Petitioner has established sufficient
9
1990 Supp SCC 727.
Signature Not Verified
Page 31
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
grounds for restraining such industrial use pending adjudication of the
respective rights of the parties.
17. The Petitioner has relied on the Detailed Project Report submitted to
the Railway authorities in 2006, wherein the existence of a two-metre-
wide kaccha pathway used by villagers, without movement of vehicular
traffic, was recorded. Conversely, the Opposite Party maintains that the
pathway constitutes an existing public road connecting the adjoining
industrial area and local habitations to NH-16. Although the existence
of the pathway is not disputed, the parties differ as to its character and
the extent of the right of passage available thereover.
18.
The prior use of the pathway by villagers does not necessarily establish
a right to use it for movement of heavy industrial vehicles. However,
the Petitioner's claim of exclusive possession over the leasehold
premises must also be considered in the light of any existing right of
passage recognised under the relevant lease or otherwise under law.
These competing claims require determination with reference to the
lease documents, railway records and other evidence to be adduced in
the suit.
19. The Petitioner's primary apprehension concerns the safety of its private
railway siding and the possible consequences of permitting heavy
industrial vehicles to cross the railway tracks. It has been contended
that the crossing is categorised as a 'D' level crossing, intended for
pedestrians and cattle, and that movement of heavy vehicles and
construction machinery may damage the railway infrastructure or
interfere with the operation of its cement manufacturing unit. The
Signature Not Verified
Page 32
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
Petitioner has also relied upon its agreements with the Railway
authorities and the obligations arising thereunder. These contentions
are relevant to the question of irreparable injury. Such apprehended
consequences must be assessed with reference to the materials available
at the interlocutory stage and the safeguards governing the proposed
use of the crossing.
20. In this regard, the order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the Collector and
District Magistrate, Jajpur is relevant. While permitting the use of the
disputed crossing by IDCO and its allottees for industrial purposes, the
Collector directed the Opposite Party to ensure that no damage was
caused to the railway line of the Petitioner and to take all necessary
precautions. The order further contemplated consultation with the
Railway authorities in the event of movement of heavy machinery and
strengthening of the railway line wherever required. The permission
contemplated under the said order is thus accompanied by conditions
concerning protection of the railway infrastructure. The apprehensions
raised by the Petitioner must be considered in the light of these
safeguards, which have a direct bearing upon the manner in which the
crossing may be used.
21. The Petitioner has contended that the Opposite Party has not
undertaken the consultation contemplated in the Collector's order and
that movement of heavy machinery without the requisite precautions
may expose it to consequences under the railway agreements and
applicable statutory provisions. The question whether the conditions
imposed by the Collector have been complied with requires
Signature Not Verified
Page 33
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
examination of the relevant facts and records. The disputed assertions
concerning compliance cannot be conclusively determined in the
present proceeding. Any failure to observe the prescribed conditions
would remain subject to examination by the competent authorities in
accordance with law. At this stage, the apprehensions raised by the
Petitioner do not establish that the refusal of temporary injunction by
the Courts below was founded upon an arbitrary or perverse exercise
of discretion.
22. Turning to the order dated 10.11.2025, the learned Trial Court
considered the Petitioner's claim of exclusive rights over the leasehold
premises and the objections raised against the use of the crossing. It
took note of the order passed by the Collector and the competing
contentions concerning the character and use of the pathway. Upon
examining the requirement of prima facie case, the learned Trial Court
found that the Petitioner had raised an arguable case requiring
adjudication upon evidence at the trial. It thereafter considered the
remaining requirements of balance of convenience and irreparable
injury and concluded that they had not been established in favour of
the Petitioner.
23. It is further noted that the finding concerning balance of convenience
was based upon the comparative hardship likely to arise from granting
or refusing the relief sought. The learned Trial Court placed reliance on
the finding recorded by the Collector that the disputed crossing
constituted the existing approach to the industrial premises of the
Opposite Party. It also considered the use of the pathway by the local
Signature Not Verified
Page 34
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
villagers and the consequences which an obstruction could have upon
the industrial development proposed in the adjoining area. Taking
these circumstances into account, the learned Trial Court concluded
that the hardship likely to be caused by restraining access would
outweigh the injury apprehended by the Petitioner.
24.
The Petitioner has challenged the finding concerning the absence of
alternative access and has asserted that another route through Village
Mania is available. The Opposite Party, on the other hand, maintains
that the disputed crossing constitutes the only practicable approach to
its allotted land. The learned Trial Court proceeded upon the
Collector's determination concerning access while assessing the
comparative hardship likely to arise from granting or refusing
injunction. The Petitioner has also relied upon maps, photographs and
additional materials to support its contention concerning alternative
access. However, the existence of competing assertions and the
subsequent production of additional materials do not, by themselves,
establish that the conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court was
unsupported by the material before it. The existence and suitability of
the alleged alternative route remain matters requiring examination
upon evidence. In these circumstances, the finding recorded at the
interlocutory stage cannot be characterised as manifestly perverse
merely because an alternative route has been asserted.
25.
The distinction between the customary passage of villagers and the
proposed movement of heavy industrial vehicles has also been
considered. The Petitioner has consistently maintained that it does not
Signature Not Verified
Page 35
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
seek to obstruct the movement of local inhabitants. Nevertheless, the
relief sought in the injunction application was directed against
industrial use of the crossing by the Opposite Party. Such use was
specifically contemplated in the Collector's order dated 25.10.2025,
subject to conditions concerning railway safety. The learned Trial Court
was therefore required to assess the comparative consequences of
restraining that use. Its conclusion concerning balance of convenience
was reached upon consideration of the asserted requirement of access
to the Opposite Party's industrial premises. It is therefore the
considered view of this Court that the limited nature of the objection
raised by the Petitioner does not establish any jurisdictional infirmity
in that assessment.
26. The respective rights asserted under the lease agreements also must be
considered. The Petitioner claims exclusive possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property pursuant to the Lease Deed dated
12.06.2008 executed with IDCO. In this regard, the Opposite Party has
relied upon Clause 20 of the said Lease Deed concerning the reservation
of existing rights and public roads or pathways, besides the statutory
functions of IDCO relating to industrial development and
infrastructure. The effect of these provisions upon the disputed
crossing depends upon the terms of the relevant documents, the nature
of the pathway and the extent of the rights claimed by the parties. These
matters also cannot be finally determined while considering the present
challenge to the refusal of temporary injunction. The learned Trial
Court having found that the dispute raised an arguable case, its
Signature Not Verified
Page 36
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
decision to refuse injunction upon consideration of balance of
convenience and irreparable injury cannot be treated as a final rejection
of the Petitioner's leasehold rights.
27. It is further noted that the Petitioner has relied upon the Wildlife
Conservation Plan titled Jhatia Passage for Elephants, contending that
the disputed passage falls within an area identified for movement of
elephants and other wildlife and that the proposed industrial traffic
would be inconsistent with the restrictions contemplated thereunder.
The applicability of the Plan to the disputed portion of the pathway and
the nature of the conditions governing its use require examination of
the relevant documents. The said contention, including the question of
compliance with any applicable restrictions, remains open for
consideration in accordance with law. The material placed before this
Court does not, however, establish that the concurrent orders refusing
temporary injunction warrant interference in exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction on this ground.
28.
The Petitioner has also challenged the authority of the Collector to
permit industrial vehicles to pass through its leasehold premises. The
Opposite Party in this regard has relied upon the order dated 25.10.2025
as an existing direction permitting access through the crossing. The
legality and effect of the said order form part of the underlying
controversy. At the stage of deciding temporary injunction, the Courts
below were entitled to consider its existence and the findings recorded
therein for the limited purpose of assessing the relief sought. Such
consideration does not amount to a final determination of the
Signature Not Verified
Page 37
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
Collector's authority or the respective rights of the parties. Those
questions shall remain open for adjudication in accordance with law.
29. As regards the question of irreparable injury, the learned Trial Court
considered the apprehensions concerning damage to the railway tracks
and interference with the Petitioner's operations. It concluded that the
injury apprehended by the Petitioner did not outweigh the
consequences likely to follow from preventing access to the Opposite
Party's industrial premises. The Petitioner has challenged the
observation that damage to the railway infrastructure could be
compensated in monetary terms.
30.
The consequences of damage to an operational railway siding may
undoubtedly extend beyond the immediate expense of repairs.
However, the finding of the learned Trial Court must be read in the
context of its assessment of the competing injuries and the safeguards
contemplated under the Collector's order. The Court did not proceed
upon the absence of any apprehended injury, but found that the
requirements for grant of temporary injunction had not been satisfied
upon consideration of the circumstances placed before it. Such an
assessment falls within the discretion entrusted to the Court under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
31. The learned Appellate Court, while deciding F.A.O. No. 62 of 2025,
referred to the principles governing grant of temporary injunction and
the limitations upon appellate interference with discretionary orders.
Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the materials placed
before it, the learned Appellate Court concluded that the Petitioner had
Signature Not Verified
Page 38
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
failed to satisfy the requirements for grant of temporary injunction and
that the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court did not warrant
interference.
32. The Petitioner has contended that the learned Appellate Court failed to
undertake a proper examination of the relevant documents. In
examining this contention, regard must be had to the reasons recorded
in the impugned orders and the materials considered by the Courts
below. The learned Trial Court considered the requirements governing
temporary injunction and assessed the competing claims concerning
access, comparative hardship and apprehended injury. The learned
Appellate Court declined to interfere with that exercise of discretion. In
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court
cannot substitute its own assessment of the disputed materials merely
because another view may be possible. Interference would be
warranted only where the conclusions reached are shown to be vitiated
by jurisdictional error, manifest perversity or disregard of the settled
principles governing the exercise of discretion.
33.
On consideration of the rival submissions and the findings recorded by
the Courts below, this Court finds that no such infirmity has been
established. The dispute involves competing claims concerning the
nature of the pathway, the extent of rights arising under the lease
agreements, the availability of alternative access and the conditions
governing movement of industrial vehicles across the railway siding.
These questions require adjudication upon evidence in the suit. The
learned Trial Court considered the requirements for temporary
Signature Not Verified
Page 39
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
injunction and found that the balance of convenience and the question
of irreparable injury did not favour the Petitioner. The learned
Appellate Court affirmed that conclusion upon consideration of the
grounds raised before it. These findings are supported by material
available on record and cannot be characterised as manifestly perverse
or contrary to the principles governing interlocutory relief.
34. This Court has also taken note of the interim order dated 06.01.2026
passed in the present proceeding, whereby the Opposite Party was
restrained from using the railway level crossing for industrial purposes
until 03.02.2026, while preserving the passage of the local villagers. It is
noted that the said order was passed at an interlocutory stage and does
not constitute a final determination of the rights of the parties. The
observations made therein were confined to the consideration of
interim relief and do not dispense with the necessity of examining the
impugned orders in accordance with the principles governing
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
35.
Before parting with the matter, it is necessary to clarify that refusal of
temporary injunction does not confer upon the Opposite Party an
unrestricted right to use the disputed railway crossing. The directions
contained in the Collector's order dated 25.10.2025 concerning
protection of the railway tracks, necessary precautions and consultation
with the Railway authorities for movement of heavy machinery are
required to be observed in accordance with law. The Opposite Party
shall remain bound by the applicable statutory requirements and the
conditions governing use of the crossing. Any alleged violation of such
Signature Not Verified
Page 40
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47
requirements shall be open to examination by the competent authority
or Court in accordance with law. The observations made in the present
judgment shall not be construed as authorising any activity contrary to
the prescribed railway safety requirements.
VI. C ONCLUSION :
36.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no jurisdictional
error, manifest perversity or material irregularity in the exercise of
discretion by the Courts below warranting interference under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the order dated
10.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Chandikhole, in I.A. No. 44 of 2025 arising out of C.S. No. 98 of 2025, as
affirmed by the judgment dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Chandikhole, in F.A.O. No. 62 of 2025, calls
for no interference.
37. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed .
38. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 30 October, 2026
Signature Not Verified
Page 41
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 15:59:47