Sushila Sahoo vs Jamuna Sahoo @ Pradhan
2021 Latest Caselaw 12467 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                    W.P.(C) NO. 28681 OF 2013
                 Sushila Sahoo                            ....      Petitioner
                                                     Mr.Tusar Kumar Mishra,
                                                                 Advocate
                                      -versus-
                 Jamuna Sahoo @ Pradhan                   .... Opp. Party
                                                     Mr. Maheswar Mohanty,
                                                                 Advocate

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                         ORDER

Order No.                               04.12.2021

                 I.A. No. 3073 of 2014
      5.    1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This is an application for amendment of the cause title of the writ petition.

3. Taking into consideration the averments made in this application, prayer is allowed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is permitted to correct the cause title of the writ petition in Court today.

4. The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.

(K.R.Mohapatra) Judge W.P.(C) NO. 28681 OF 2013

6. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 13th September, 2021 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baliguda in I.A. No. 7 of

// 2 //

2012 (arising out of Execution Proceeding No.1 of 2011), whereby he rejected the application filed by the present Petitioner under Section 47 of the C.P.C.

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party (D.Hr.) submits that this writ petition is not maintainable as the order impugned in this writ petition is revisable under Section 115 C.P.C.

4. In course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submits that assailing the judgment and decree put to execution is under challenge in RSA No.50 of 2016 before this Court filed by the Petitioner.

5. Since further proceeding in Execution Proceeding No.1 of 2011 has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 8th January, 2014, the Petitioner has not filed any interim application in the said RSA.

6. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the Petitioner, if so advised, may file an application for appropriate interim order in RSA No. 50 of 2016. So far as the impugned order is concerned, the Petitioner is at liberty to renew the same before the competent court, if fresh cause of action arises.

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

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge bks