[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dinabandhu Oram And Others vs Dukhi Oram And Others .... Opposite ... on 12 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
C.M.P. No.1311 of 2024
(An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Dinabandhu Oram and Others .... Petitioners
-versus-
Dukhi Oram and Others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioners - Mr. Gopinath Mishra,
Advocate.
For Opposite Paries - Mr. Soumya Mishra,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :12.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment :12.03.2026
A.C. Behera, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners
praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated
17.09.2024 passed in I.A. No.44 of 2024 arising out of Execution Suit
No.26 of 2010 in connection with the Judgment and Decree passed in
the suit vide C.S. No.40 of 2006 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Sambalpur.
2. The factual backgrounds of this CMP, which prompted the
petitioners for filing of the same is that, the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Sambalpur passed an order on dated 30.08.2024 in
Execution Suit No.26 of 2010 as follows:-
"The case record is posted today awaiting SR of writ of
delivery of possession. SR of writ back with a report of the
bailiff that, the execution of delivery of possession to the
DHr is completed in presence of Executive Magistrate,
police staff of Rengali PS and witnesses. Put up on
16.09.2024 for further order and objection, if any."
3. As per the above order dated 30.08.2024, objection was
invited by the learned Executing Court for further order in Execution
Suit No.26/2010. For which, the petitioners in this CMP filed an
interlocutory application vide I.A. No.44 of 2024 on dated 16.09.2024
as an objection in Execution Suit No.26 of 2010.
On 17.09.2024, when I.A. No.44 of 2024 was put up before
the learned Executing Court i.e. before learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Sambalpur. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Sambalpur passed the impugned order on that day i.e. 17.09.2024 as
follows:
since the Court has become functus officio, the I.A. filed by the
petitioners cannot be considered. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed
of.
To which, the petitioners challenged filing this CMP under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing
the same on the ground that, as per the order dated 30.08.2024 in
Execution Suit No.26/2010, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Sambalpur invited objection and when on the basis of such invitation
of objection, the petitioners filed objection in time in the form of
interlocutory application vide I.A. No.44 of 2024, then, the learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur should not have passed the
impugned order disposing of that I.A. No.44 of 2024 as per the
impugned order dated 17.09.2024 expressing that, since the Court has
become functus officio, for which, the I.A. filed by the petitioners
cannot be considered.
So, the aforesaid impugned order dated 17.09.2024 passed in
I.A. No.44 of 2024 in connection with Execution Suit No.26 of 2010
is a self-contradictory order. When, the learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Sambalpur himself invited objection in Execution Suit
No.26/2010 and when the petitioners filed objection in time in the
form of I.A. No.44/2024, then in that situation, the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur should not have disposed of the
said I.A. expressing that, the Court has become functus officio. For
which, the impugned order is against the principles of natural justice.
4. It is very fundamental in law that, whenever any application
or petition is filed either in a pending case or in a disposed of case,
such petition must be answered by the Court through a reasoned
order, but the Court cannot avoid to dispose of such petition
expressing that, the Court has become functus officio.
5. Therefore, in view of such principles of law, the impugned
order dated 17.09.2024 passed in I.A. No.44 of 2024 arising out of
Execution Suit No.26 of 2010 in connection with the suit vide C.S.
No.40 of 2006 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Sambalpur cannot be sustainable under law. The same is liable to be
interfered with through this CMP filed by the petitioners.
6. Therefore, there is some merit in this CMP filed by the
petitioners. The same is to be allowed in part.
7. In result, the CMP filed by the petitioners is allowed in part.
The impugned order dated 17.09.2024 passed in I.A. No.44
of 2024 arising out of Execution Suit No.26 of 2010 in connection
with the suit vide C.S. No.40 of 2006 by the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Sambalpur is quashed.
8. The matter vide I.A. No.44 of 2024 is remitted back to the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur for deciding the
same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the
parties as expeditiously as possible within a period of 4 months from
the date of filing of the certified copy of this judgment.
9. The parties to this CMP are directed to appear before the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur in I.A. No.44 of
2024 on dated 23.03.2026 and to file the certified copy of this
judgment for the purpose of receiving direction(s) of the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur as to further proceeding of I.A.
No.44 of 2024.
10. As such, this CMP filed by the petitioners is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
12.03.2026//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Mar-2026 16:02:20
