Orissa High Court
Smt. Ranjita Sahoo vs All Orissa State Bank Officers' .... ... on 9 December, 2025
Author: B. P. Routray
Bench: B. P. Routray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
C.M.P. No.1131 of 2025
Smt. Ranjita Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. L. Sarangi, Advocate
-versus-
All Orissa State Bank Officers' .... Opposite Party
Housing Cooperative Ltd., Bhoi Nagar,
Bhubaneswar
Mr. P.C. Nayak, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
09.12.2025 Order No.
05. 1. Heard Mr. L. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the Opposite Party.
2. Present C.M.P. is directed against order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in I.A. No.463 of 2015 (arising out of Execution Case No.10 of 2013), wherein the prayer of the Petitioner to stay the proceeding in I.A. No.463 of 2015 pending disposal of I.A. No.03 of 2023 has been rejected.
3. I.A. No.03 of 2023 and I.A. No.463 of 2015 both have been filed by the present Petitioner in Execution Case No.10 of 2013. Execution Case No.10 of 2013 is in respect of execution of the decree dated 24.03.2013 passed in C.S. No.1313 of 2012, whereby the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise petition. It is important to mention here that present Petitioner was not a party to C.S. No.1313 of 2012 and according to him, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Page 1 of 2 Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2025 17:03:45 the said suit has been decreed collusively by way of compromise avoiding presence of the Petitioner and therefore at the stage of execution, he filed I.A. No.03 of 2023 under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. objecting his dispossession.
4. I.A. No.463 of 2015 has been filed under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. by the present Petitioner against the order of attachment with a prayer to detach the property in question in respect of which I.A. No.03 of 2023 was filed subsequently.
5. Admittedly, the property is in attachment till date and I.A. No.463 of 2015 filed at the instance of present Petitioner is still pending. It is seen on record that I.A. No.03 of 2023 has been filed much after I.A. No.463 of 2015. Thus, when the Petitioner has preferred I.A. No.03 of 2023 to object dispossession under Order 21 Rule 97 of the C.P.C. and admittedly by then the property has already been attached, no connection reveals between both the prayers of the Petitioner, i.e. one under Rule 58 to detach the property and the other under Rule 97 to object dispossession from the property, because in hard case if I.A. No.463 of 2015 is rejected, the status of the property as attached would still continue pending I.A. No.03 of 2023.
6. Accordingly, no merit is seen in favour of the Petitioner to interfere with the impugned order and the C.M.P. is dismissed.
( B.P. Routray) Judge B.K. Barik Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 2 Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2025 17:03:45