Dismissed

Suvakanta Satapathy v. Triptilata Mohanty

Orissa HC23 Dec 2022CMP/1258/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court of Orissa directed that the impugned order staying execution proceedings be kept in abeyance. The Court required the petitioners to lodge a fresh application for stay along with a deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- before the executing Court for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

None immediately granted; petitioner directed to file a fresh stay application with deposit before executing Court.

Suvakanta Satapathy Vs Triptilata Mohanty — Execution and Attachment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 1258 OF 2022

¶2

Suvakanta Satapathy and another …. Petitioners

¶3

Mr. Santosh Kumar Samantaray, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Triptilata Mohanty

¶6

…. Opp. Party

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

23.12.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Order dated 18^th December, 2021 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Puri in Execution Petition No.03 of 2021 (arising out of C.S. No.79 of 2018) is under challenge in the CMP, whereby a petition to stay further proceeding in the execution case during pendency of C.M.A. No.125 of 2021 filed under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. by the Petitioners has been rejected.

¶15

Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that law is well settled that when a petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. is pending, learned executing Court should await the decision on such petition to proceed with the execution case, failing which there is every likelihood of multiplicity of litigation. In the instant case, although learned executing Court took note of the said legal position, but holding that the prayer of the Petitioners do not come within the scope and ambit of Order XXI Rules 26 and 29 C.P.C., rejected the application and refused

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

to stay further proceeding in Execution Petition No.03 of 2021. Hence, this CMP has been filed for the aforesaid relief.

¶19

In course of hearing, Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the Petitioners, on instruction, submits that the Petitioners are ready to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) before learned executing Court for securing the decree. Hence, he prays for stay of execution proceeding till disposal of C.M.A. No.125 of 2021.

¶20

Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the Petitioners-J.Drs are ready to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/before learned executing Court, their prayer for stay of execution proceeding during pendency of C.M.A. No.125 of 2021 should be re-considered giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶21

In that view of the matter, this Court keeping in abeyance the impugned order under Annexure-6 directs that in the event, the Petitioners file an application for stay of further proceeding in execution case within a period of two weeks hence, detailing their grievance and by depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- before learned executing Court, their petition shall be considered on its own merit giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶22

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this CMP is disposed of.

¶23

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶24

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶25

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Suvakanta Satapathy v. Triptilata Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suvakanta Satapathy v. Triptilata Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganeshram Patel Vs State of Odisha

Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. . Vs Antaryami Malik

Geeta Kumari Sahu Vs Subhra Parijata Sahu

Kanhu Charan Samal Vs R.T.O, Cuttack

Bhanja Sekhar Mohapatra Vs R.T.O., Chandikhole

Binod Chhotaray Vs State of Odisha