Judhistir Jena vs Surendra Mohanty And Anr. on 17 April, 1969
2. The plaintiff filed the suit (T.S. 140 of 1985) with the prayer that Schedule-B of the plaint schedule property be partitioned and for a declaration that the decree in Title Suit No. 16 of 1979 does not bind the plaintiff, on the allegation that defendant No. 11, Madan Mohan Panda had filed the earlier Title Suit No. 16 of 1979 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jajpur, wherein the plaintiff's father was a party and obtained a decree therein by intentionally excluding the plaintiff from the suit and by exercising undue influence on his father and in the process the plaintiff was denied of his due share in the ancestral property. For course of the said suit, the plaintiff also filed in application for stay of execution case. No. 17 of 1984. Though the said application was styled to be an application under Section 94 Civil P.C. but essentially the same is one under Order 21, Rule 29 of the Civil P.C. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the ratio indicated in the case of Judhistir v. Surendra, AIR 1969 Orissa, 238, had full application to the facts and circumstances of the present case and accordingly, the prayer for stay of further proceedings of execution case was rejected. It is this order that is being assailed in this revision by the plaintiff.