Orissa High Court
Chief Engineer ( Ez-Ii) Central vs Karunakar Mohanty on 19 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ARBA NO. 14 of 2020
Chief Engineer ( EZ-II) Central .... Appellants
Public Works Deptt. Patna, Bihar
& Ors.
Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, ASGI
Mr. Debasis Tripathy, CGC
-versus-
Karunakar Mohanty .... Respondent
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 19.01.2023
I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 2023 & ARBA No.14 of 2020
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants. None
appears for the opposite party.
3. The petitioners/appellants challenge the judgment dated
16th November, 2019 passed by the learned District Judge,
Khordha at Bhubaneswar in Arbitration Proceeding No.183
of 2010 wherein the learned District Judge dismissed the said
petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 1996.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants submits
that the notice was issued on the respondent. In the
meantime, the Execution Case No.61 of 2010 has been filed in
// 2 //
the Executing Court. On 17.01.2023 the Executing Court has
directed the Bank to prepare the D.D. for an amount of
Rs.1,32,13,228/- in favour of DHR namely, Karunkar
Mohanty by 24.01.2023. Hence, the appellants/petitioners
have urgently mentioned the matter at 10.30 A.M. and the
matter was taken up at 2 P.M.though this case was not listed
today.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants submits
that though the case was adjourned to 2nd of February,2023
but the court below is proceeding in the Execution Case
and the same is fixed to 24.01.2023 for execution. He further
submits that this Court had earlier issued notice to the
opposite party/ respondent and in spite of valid service of
notice, he has not appeared before this Court till date.
However, the opposite party/respondent is proceeding in the
execution case in the court below which will prejudicially
affect the petitioner.
6 .In the meantime, the I.A. No.05 of 2023 has been filed for
preponement of date. Since this matter is taken up today, on
being mentioned, learned counsel for the petitioners/
appellants does not want to press the said I.A. Accordingly,
the I.A stands disposed of being not pressed.
7. So far as the I.A.No.6 is concerned, learned counsel for
the petitioners/appellants drew the attention of this Court to
// 3 //
the Order 26 Rule 21(1) of Code of Civil Procedure which is
extracted hereunder;
"26.When Court may stay execution-(1) The Court to
which a decree has been sent for execution shall, upon
sufficient cause being shown, stay the execution of
such decree for a reasonable time, to enable the
judgment-debtor to apply to the Court by which the
decree was passed, or to any Court having appellate
jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution
thereof, for an order to stay execution, or for any other
order relating to the decree or execution which might
have been made by such Court of first instance or
Appellate Court if execution had been issued thereby,
or if application for execution had been made thereto."
8. Considering the submissions made in the I.A. No.6 of 2023
there shall be stay of further proceedings in Execution Case
No.61 of 2010 pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil
Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar and the said Court
shall not pass order to release Rs.1,32,13,228/- either in shape
of cash or Demand Draft in favour of the present opposite
party/Respondent-DHR. Namely, Karunakar Mohanty till
the next date.
9. List this matter on 7th of February, 2023.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
// 4 //
LB
