Disposed¶21

Premananda Nayak v. Kajal Jyoti Sahoo

Orissa HC1 May 2025CMP/203/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedition of execution proceedings; direction to trial court to close long-pending execution case within two months; Section 47 CPC applications by judgment-debtor/opposite party causing inordinate delay; reliance on Supreme Court directions in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418; suit of 1959, Execution Case No.1 of 2017, Execution Misc. Case No.1 of 2020; Civil Court Commissioner appointed in final decree proceeding (2019); CMP disposed at admission without notice; Orissa High Court, single judge R.K. Pattanaik.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Aul to dispose of Execution Case No.01 of 2017 at the earliest, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, keeping in view the observations made and the directions issued in Rahul S. Shah.

Premananda Nayak Vs Kajal Jyoti Sahoo — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned court below should be directed to dispose of Execution Case No.1 of 2017 (arising out of C.S. No.42 of 1959, Civil Judge (J.D.), Aul) at the earliest, in view of the inordinate delay attributable to the Section 47 CPC applications filed by opposite party No.1.

¶17

Court's answer

Considering that the suit is of the year 1959 and pending for long, and the execution proceeding is of 2017, even though the applications were moved by opposite party No.1, the learned court below should be directed to close the matter without further delay.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The CMP was disposed of with a direction to the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Aul to dispose of Execution Case No.01 of 2017 at the earliest, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, keeping in view the Court's observations and the directions issued in Rahul S. Shah.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (R.K. Pattanaik, J.) disposed of CMP No.203 of 2025 (Premananda Nayak v. Kajal Jyoti Sahoo and others) at the admission stage, without issuing notices to the opposite parties. The petitioner had sought early disposal of Execution Case No.1 of 2017 arising out of C.S. No.42 of 1959 of the file of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Aul, pending since approximately 18 years. Counsel for the petitioner attributed the delay to applications filed by opposite party No.1 under Section 47 CPC, including a similar application registered as Execution Misc. Case No.1 of 2020 out of the self-same proceeding, and relied on the Apex Court decision in Rahul S. Shah Vrs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others (2021) 6 SCC 418. Noting that the suit dated back to 1959 and that a Civil Court Commissioner had been appointed during the final decree proceeding in 2019, the Court directed the learned court below to dispose of Execution Case No.01 of 2017 at the earliest, preferably within two months of receipt of a copy of the order, in view of the directions issued in Rahul S. Shah (supra).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No.203 of 2025

Premananda Nayak

…. Petitioner

Mr. B. Rout, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Kajal Jyoti Sahoo and others

¶8

…. Opposite party

¶9

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

01.05.2025

Heard Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

No notices are issued to the opposite parties as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶16

Instant petition is filed by the petitioner for early disposal of Execution Case No.1 of 2017 arising out of the suit in C.S. No.42 of 1959 of the file of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Aul on the grounds stated therein.

¶17

Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Rahul S. Shah Vrs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others (2021) 6 SCC 418 , it is submitted by Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay in disposal of the execution proceeding has taken place due to the conduct of opposite party No.1 him having filed an application under Section 47 CPC. It is further submitted that the similar application was filed by opposite party No.1 registered as Execution Misc. Case No.1 of 2020 arising out of the self-same proceeding and hence, there has been inordinate delay and therefore, learned court below should be directed to expedite disposal of the execution proceeding pending since last 18 years. In course of hearing, Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

brought to the notice of the Court the fact regarding appointment of the Civil Court Commissioner during and in course of the final decree proceeding in 2019. But, in the meanwhile, opposite party No.1 filed the applications under Section 47 CPC. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1959 and pending for long and the execution proceeding is of 2017, though, the applications have been moved by opposite party No.1, the Court is of the view that learned court below should be directed to close it without further delay. Such is of the view of the Court, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Rahul S. Shah (supra) and directions issued therein. In other words, it is a fit case, where a direction is needed to be issued to the learned court below to consider early disposal of the execution proceeding.

¶20

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶21

In the result, the CMP stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid to be complied with by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Aul in disposing of Execution Case No.01 of 2017 at the earliest preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order keeping in view the observations made herein above and directions issued in Rahul S. Shah (supra).

¶22

Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶23

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge

¶24

Rojina

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 03-May-2025 14:40:26

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Premananda Nayak v. Kajal Jyoti Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premananda Nayak v. Kajal Jyoti Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushanta Kumar Jena Vs Sita Sahoo

Kanak Manjari Pradhan Vs Subash Chandra Pradhan

Rohit Bahadur Singh Vs Anusaya Sahu

Bahadur Singh Vs Sambhunath Naik

Krushna Mohan Sahoo Vs Collector Dhenkanal

All Odisha State Bank Officers Housing Co. Operative Society Limited,Bhubaneswar Vs Surendra Sahu