Orissa High Court
Arabinda Satapathy vs Renubala Satapathy on 6 July, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.1034 of 2026
Arabinda Satapathy ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Suvashish Pattanaik
-versus-
Renubala Satapathy ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. A.P.Bose, Advocate
along with Mr. S.N. Das,
Advocate for the
Caveator-Opposite Party
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
06.07.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. Suvashish Pattanaik, learned counsel for the
Petitioner as well as Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the
Caveator-Opposite Party. Perused the Civil Miscellaneous Petition
as well as the documents annexed to the thereto.
3. The Judgment Debtor in Execution Case No.242 of 2023
pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) (LR &
LTV), Bhubaneswar, has approached this Court by filing the present
Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
Page 1 of 5.
India thereby challenging the impugned order dated 20.04.2026 at
Annexure-4.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended
that the Opposite Party, as Plaintiff, filed a suit for eviction and
ancillary reliefs. In the suit although the Petitioner was a Defendant,
however, the Defendant preferred not to file W.S. and contest the
suit. Eventually, the suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the
Plaintiff filed the abovenoted Execution Case. During the pendency
of the abovenoted Execution Case, the Judgement Debtor filed an
application under Order-21 Rule-97 of the C.P.C. to protect his
possession. However, such application having been rejected by the
learned trial court, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing
the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition.
5. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the Caveator-
Opposite Party, on the other hand, contended that although the
decree which has been passed against the Petitioner is an ex parte
decree, the same is a valid decree in the eyes of law. He further
contended that such decree has attained finality as the Petitioner
preferred to remain silent and did not challenge such decree. He
further contended that even in his application under Order-21 Rule-
97 of C.P.C. the Petitioner has not indicated as to whether he has
filed any appeal against the ex parte decree. Mr. Bose further
submitted that the Petitioner being a Defendant in the suit, an
application under Order-21 Rule-97 of C.P.C. is not maintainable at
his instance. He further contended that the aforesaid provision is
applicable to strangers to the suit to lawfuly protect their possession
which are not parties to the suit and no decree has been passed
Page 2 of 5.
against such parties directly. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned
counsel for the Opposite Party contended that the present Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same
should be dismissed. He further contended that though the Petitioner
filed an application under Section 47 of the C.P.C before the
Executing Court, the same has also been rejected. He further
contended that the Petitioner is trying to delay the execution of the
decree by adopting dilatory tactics by filing different applications.
6. In reply to the above, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that although the Petitioner has preferred First Appeal
bearing R.F.A. No.17 of 2023 in the court of learned District Judge,
Khurda at Bhubaneswar, the same has not been taken up as of now.
He further contended that there was a delay in filing of such appeal
and, in the application filed for condonation of such delay, notices
have been issued.
7. On perusal of the order sheets, it appears that although notice
has been issued to the Respondents, the condonation of delay
application has not been taken up as of now. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
Petitioner, who is residing in the suit house, which happens to be his
only residential house, apprehends danger to his possession and there
is every likelihood that he might be thrown out of his house by the
Opposite Party.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful
examination of the background facts of the present case, further
keeping in view the development that had taken place in the present
Page 3 of 5.
case, this Court found that the Petitioner is guilty in not taking
prompt steps in the suit, as a result of which, he is suffering. This
Court further observes that instead of filing an application for setting
aside the decree or preferring an appeal against such decree, the
Petitioner preferred to file application under Section 47 of the C.P.C.
and under Order-21 Rule-97 thereof. However, taking into
consideration the fact that admittedly the suit house is being used as
homestead by the Petitioner, this Court grants an opportunity to the
Petitioner to take steps in the pending appeal. Accordingly, it is
directed that learned First Appellate Court shall make every
endeavour to dispose of the Interlocutory Application pending before
it for condonation of delay. In the event it is found that notice has
been made sufficient on the respondent, every endeavour shall be
made to ensure that the Interlocutory Application for condonation be
taken up and disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of
six weeks. It is further directed that till disposal of the Interlocutory
Application, the learned Executing Court shall not take any coercive
steps against the Petitioner.
9. Mr. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party
stated before this Court that the Opposite Party, who is Respondent
to the appeal and Opposite Party to the Interlocutory Application,
undertakes to appear before the learned Frist Appellate Court within
a week. Considering such submission, both parties are directed to
approach the learned First Appellate Court on 13th July, 2026. On
their appearance, the learned First Appellate Court shall make every
endeavour to first consider the condonation of delay application and
dispose of the same within two weeks thereafter. Further, taking into
Page 4 of 5.
consideration the seriousness of the issue involved, every endeavour
shall be made by the learned First Appellate Court to consider and,
subject to learned First Appellate Court condoning the delay in
preferring such appeal, shall try to dispose of the appeal as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months.
It is further directed that although the Execution Case shall proceed,
no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner till disposal of
the Interlocutory Application for condonation of delay. It is open to
the Petitioner to move an application before the learned First
Appellate Court, which shall be considered on its own merit.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CMP stands
disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEBASIS AECH
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 09-Jul-2026 15:33:01
Page 5 of 5.
