Sapan Behera vs Anup Kumar Nayak & Ors. ..... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 570 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sapan Behera vs Anup Kumar Nayak & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 21 January, 2026

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             CMP No.100 of 2026
            Sapan Behera                .....        Petitioner
                                                          Represented by Adv. -
                                                          Manas Ranjan Satapathy

                                    -versus-
            Anup Kumar Nayak & Ors.        .....               Opposite Parties
                                                          Represented by Adv. -
                                                          Tusar Kumar Mishra (for
                                                          O.P. No.1)

                                CORAM:
                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                              MOHAPATRA

                                         ORDER

21.01.2026 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr.T.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1, on his own without being noticed. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. By filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the defendant-Petitioner with also a judgment debtor in the pending Execution Case No.12 of 2021 arising out of CS No.149 of 2012 has approached this Court with a prayer for stay of the further proceeding in the abovenoted execution case pending in the court of learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Cuttack.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended

that CS No.149 of 2012 which was filed at the instance of the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 as plaintiffs for suit for eviction. The aforesaid suit having been decreed ex-parte, the defendant- Petitioner moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex-parte. Such application under Order 9, Rule 13 has also been dismissed in the meantime. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that as against dismissal of his application under Order 9, Rule 13, the Petitioner has preferred an appeal bearing FAO No.50 of 2025 which is stated to be pending before the learned District Judge, Cuttack along with his appeal, the Petitioner has also moved an I.A with a prayer for stay of further proceeding in the Execution Case No.12 of 2021. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that such application for stay of the further proceeding in the Execution Case has not been taken up as of now. As a result, the Execution case is proceeding.

5. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 on the other hand contended that the suit for eviction, which was filed at the instance of the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5-plaintiffs, has been decreed in the meantime. Further, the application filed at the instance of the Defendant-Petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte decree has also been dismissed. He further contended that the Petitioner moved an application before the learned trial court under Order 21, Rule 26 of the CPC the stay of the Execution Case, the same has also been dismissed by the Executing Court. It was also submitted by Mr.Mishra, learned counsel that the objection under Section 47 of the CPC filed before the Executing Court has also been dismissed in the meantime. In such view of the matter,

learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1-Plaintiff submitted before this Court that no direction should be given to the learned trial court for stay of further proceeding in the Execution case. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that in an earlier application filed before this Court bearing CMP No.82 of 2026, this Court has already directed expeditious disposal of the pending execution proceeding.

6. Taking into consideration the factual background of the present case, upon a close scrutiny of the documents annexed to the CMP application, further keeping in view the subsequent development that had taken place after the ex-parte decree was passed, this Court is not inclined to pass any order at this stage. However, while disposing of the present application, the learned District Judge, Cuttack is directed to consider the I.A application filed along with FAO No.50 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today's order after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

7. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CMP application stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Anil

Designation: Junior Stenographer

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Jan-2026 19:22:05