Janardan Das And Others vs State Of Odisha

K.R. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

Petitioners in this CMP seek to assail the order dated 16th February, 2023 (Annexure-8) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Baripada in Execution Case No.19 of 2014, whereby it is directed that further proceeding of the suit shall remain stayed till disposal of the SLP No.37885 of 2013 pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as CMAPL No.13 of 2023 pending before this Court.

It is submitted by Mr. Basu, learned counsel that the decree passed in TS No.10 of 1995 is put to execution in Execution Case No.19 of 2014. The decree was passed in favour of the Petitioners/DHrs. for recovery of possession and realization of arrear rent from the Defendant therein, namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited-Opposite Party No.1. During pendency of the Execution Proceeding, an application was filed by Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC. They have also filed an application under Section 47 CPC, which is pending consideration. The SLP No.37885 of 2013 has been filed by the present Petitioners assailing the judgment and decree passed by this Court in FA No.185 of 1997 filed by the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3. Thus, a memo was filed on 10th February, 2023 (Annexure-7) stating as under:-

“In the aforesaid execution case, the prayer for giving vacant possession of the suit premises to the Decree Holders may kindly be deleted as they do not want to proceed with such prayer in execution proceeding as the said dispute is still sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Decree Holders are confined to their prayer for rent only.”

3.1 It is submitted by Mr. Basu, learned counsel for the Petitioners that since the issue with regard to right, title and interest over the suit property claimed by Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Petitioners do not want to claim recovery of possession in the Execution Case, but so far as direction in TS No.10 of 1995 for realization of arrear rent from Opposite Party No.1 is concerned, Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 are no way aggrieved. The disputes pending in different Courts do not also relate to recovery of rent from Opposite Party No.1-HPCL. Hence, learned trial Court should not have stayed the Execution Case in its entirety. Taking into consideration the memo at Annexure-7, it should have proceeded for recovery of arrear rent from the Opposite Party No.1.

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 submits that he has no objection if the Execution Case proceeds so far as realization of arrear rent from Opposite Party No.1 is concerned.

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the Memo at Annexure-7, this Court disposes of the CMP by modifying the impugned order under Annexure-8 to the extent that the Execution Case No.19 of 2014 so far as it relates to realization of arrear rent from the JDr., namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited shall continue.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

…………………………