Orissa High Court
Parthapratima Ray vs Pradeep Chandra Ray & Others .... ... on 9 May, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.516 of 2025
Parthapratima Ray .... Petitioner
Mr. S.Kar, Advocate
-Versus-
Pradeep Chandra Ray & others .... Opposite Parties
None
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
09.05.2025
Order No.
02. 1. Heard Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. No notices are issued to the opposite parties as the matter is
disposed of at the stage of admission.
3. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned order dated 28th March, 2025 in R.F.A. No. 59 of 2022
as at Annexure-15 of learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak and
further to stay the proceeding in F.D. No, 175 of 2005 pending in
the file of learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bhadrak arising out
of the suit in C.S. No. 175 of 2005-I on the grounds stated.
4. Perused the impugned order i.e. Annexure-15. According to
learned court below, while entertaining the stay of final decree
proceeding, it was declined on the premise that this Court in CMP
No. 266 of 2025 did not consider the same and instead issued
direction for disposal of the same.
5. Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
appeal is filed by the father of the petitioner in R.F.A. No. 59 of
2022 succeeded by the petitioner and hence, the final decree
proceeding was required to be stayed, hence, the application was
moved before the learned court below to keep the further
proceeding in F.D. No, 175 of 2005 in abeyance till such disposal
but it has not been allowed.
5. The suit in C.S. No. 175 of 2005-I was disposed of by
judgment and decree dated 18th July, 2017 as at Annexure-14 and it
was followed by an appeal in RFA No. 264 of 2007 and therein, an
application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC was moved as per
Annexure-3(A) with an objection received from opposite party Nos.
5, 7, 9 & 14, a copy of which is at Annexure-3(B). At the instance of
the petitioner, CMP No.266 of 2025 was filed to include a property
situate at Cuttack and it was allowed.
6. According to Mr. Kar, learned counsel such inclusion of the
property in the final decree proceeding could not have prevented
learned court below to stay the final decree proceeding in view of
the pendency of RFA No. 59 of 2022. The Court is inclined to
accept the contention of Mr. Kar, learned counsel since learned
court below could not have declined to stay the final decree
proceeding pending disposal of appeal. In other words, the Court
reaches at a conclusion that the proceeding in F.D. No, 175 of 2005
pending in the court of learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division),
Bhadrak should be stayed notwithstanding the order in CMP No.
266 of 2025 till disposal of RFA No. 59 of 2022.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. In the result, CMP stands allowed. Consequently, the
impugned order dated 28th March, 2025 in RFA No. 59 of 2022 by
learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak at Annexure-15 is hereby
set aside with a direction to stay the proceeding in F.D. No. 175 of
2005 till such time the appeal is disposed of, which is directed to be
accomplished as soon as possible preferably within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Kabita
