Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Pitabasa Khatua & Ors on 9 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
L.A.A No.99 of 2013
State of Odisha ..... Appellant
Mr. G.N.Rout, ASC
Vs.
Pitabasa Khatua & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr.N. Panda, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
09.08.2023
I.A. No.100 of 2023
Order no. This Matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
12.
2. This application has been preferred by the State-Appellant to stay
the further proceeding in Execution Case No.12 of 2012 enclosing
thereto extract of order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.
Division), Kamakhyanagar in Execution Case No.12 of 2012 arising out
of L.A. Misc. Case No.107 of 2010, vide which the judgment debtor has
been directed to appear on 28.07.2023 in person before the said court and
file affidavit disclosing book/document of his establishment in which
adequate property is available so as to realize the decretal amount in the
said case positively, failing which law will take its own course.
3. Mr. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-Appellant draws attention of this Court to order dated 21.11.2014
passed in Misc. Case No.191 of 2014, which is extracted below:
"Misc. Case No.191 of 2014
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By order No.11 dated 4.9.2014 passed in Misc. Case
No.199 of 2013 this Court directed to stay Execution
Case No.12 of 2012 subject to deposit of 50% of the
entire decreetal dues before the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Kamakhyanagar.
In the present petition, it is stated by the learned
counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the appellant
calculated 50% of the drecreetal dues at Rs.11,86,728/-
(Eleven lakhs eighty six thousand seven hundred twenty
eight) whereas the respondent calculated the same as
Rs.14,12,883/- (Fourteen lakhs twelve thousand eight
hundred eighty three). As a result of which money as
calculated by the appellant was deposited before the
Executing Court. Vide order dated 4.11.2014 the
Executing Court had already issued order of attachment
since deposit could not be made within the time
stipulated by this Court and evenafter deposit of
Rs.11,86,728/-(Eleven lakhs eighty six thousand seven
hundred twenty eight), by its order dated 10.11.2014 the
Executing Court refused to recall the order of the
attachment dated 4.11.2014 on the ground of non-deposit
of 50% amount and that too within the stipulated time.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties this
Court directs that on deposit of a further amount of
Rs.2,00,000/-(rupees two lakhs) by the appellant within a
period of three weeks from today, the order of
attachment shall be kept in abeyance. It is further made
clear that this Court has not formed any opinion with
regard to the exact amount which constitutes 50% of the
entire decreetal dues.
The misc. case is accordingly disposed of."
4. Mr. Rout submits, in terms of the said order passed by the co-
ordinate Bench, the State-Appellant has deposited further Rs.2, 00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs) before the executing court in time. The said
submission of Mr. Rout is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the
private Respondents. In view of the said admitted fact, this Court is of the
view that there is no need to pass any further order with regard to staying
the proceeding in Execution Case No.12 of 2012.
5. Further, this Court is of the view that in view of the said order
dated 21.11.2014, vide which the Misc. Case No.191 of 2014 was
disposed of by the co-ordinate Bench, the order dated 18.07.2023 passed
by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kamakhyanagar in Execution Petition
No.12 of 2012 is uncalled-for.
6. Accordingly, such direction given by the court below vide order
dated 18.07.2023 is stayed.
7. I.A. stands disposed of.
8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application as per rule.
(S.K.MISHRA)
JUDGE
Order no. L.A.A No.99 of 2013
1. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the private Respondents submits,
this Appeal is identical to LAA No.120 of 2013, which was disposed of
on 09.09.2017 and is squarely covered by the said order passed by the co-
ordinate Bench as the land in question in the present Appeal is not only
adjacent to the land, which was the subject matter in LAA No.120 of
2013, but also the kisham of the land is also same .
2. Mr. Rout , learned Additional Standing Counsel disputes the said
submission made by Mr. Panda and submits, LCR is necessary to
ascertain the correectness of the submission made by the Counsel for the
Appellant.
3. Office is directed to do the needful to call for the LCR/scanned
copy of the LCR at the earliest.
4. Matter be listed along with LCR in the week commencing from
28th August, 2023.
(S.K.MISHRA)
JUDGE
Banita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
