Ananda Chandra Panda Dead Through Lrs. vs. Collector,Keonjhar .

2026 INSC 91
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1920 OF 2011
ANANDA CHANDRA PANDA (DEAD)
THROUGH LRs. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE COLLECTOR, KEONJHAR
& ANOTHER RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R
On perusal of the Office Report dated 12.01.2026,
it is noted that despite service of notice on
respondents there is no representation made on their
behalf. In the circumstances, we have heard learned
counsel for the appellants only.
2. Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated
06.04.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.1888/2007 by the High
Signature Not Verified
Court of Orissa at Cuttack by which the Writ Petition
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2026.01.29
14:48:47 IST
Reason:
filed assailing an order dated 24.01.2007 passed by
1

the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Anandpur in
CMA No.40/2006 arising out of Execution Proceeding
No.8/2000 rejecting the appellant’s preliminary
objections to the application filed by the respondents
herein under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short “CPC”) was sustained.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the
appellants had filed a civil suit bearing T.S. No.16
of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Anandpur and the
said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated
17.01.1994.
4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the
appellant herein preferred T.A. No.11/1994 before the
first Appellate Court (learned District Judge at
Keonjhar) and by judgment and decree dated 08.10.1999,
the said appeal was allowed in part. For immediate
reference, paragraph 12 of the said judgment is
extracted as under:
2

“12. In the result the appeal is allowed in
part. The right, title and interest of the
plaintiff-appellant over Suit Hal Plot No.53 in
Khata No.19 measuring AO.08 decimals as per the
plaint schedule is declarated but the other
prayers relating to the suit house which stands
over Hal Plot No.54 and its recovery of
possession/confirmation of possession is
dismissed against respondent no.1 and 2 with
cost and ex parte against respondent No.3.”
5. The said judgment related to the declaration of
right, title and interest of the appellant-plaintiff
over Suit Hal Plot No.53 in Khata No.19 measuring
AO.08 decimals as per the plaint schedule but the
other prayers relating to suit house which stands over
Hal Plot 54 and its recovery of possession was
dismissed. The said judgment and decree has attained
finality.
6. Since the declaration of right, title and
interest of the appellant-plaintiff was made about the
suit Hal plot No.53, the appellant herein preferred
E.P. No.8/2000 in respect of the scheduled land. For
ease of reference, the details of the scheduled land
are extracted as under:
3

“The schedule of land, the delivery of
possession of which was given to the decree
holder Sri Ananda Chandra Panda, son of late
Sridhar Panda of Vill/PO. Ghasipura is given
below:

7. By order dated 26.08.2006, learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division) Anandpur allowed the execution Case
No.8/2000 which was disposed of as the decree passed
by First Appellate Court was satisfied. For immediate
reference the said order is extracted as under:
“This order is on the report of C.C.C., submitted
dtd.18.3.06 regarding delivery of possession.
4

The report of the CCC reveals that land as
demarked by him in the presence of the parties
and witnesses and thereafter possession was
delivered to the Dhr by the bailiff. Delivery of
possession finds corroboration in the report of
the bailiff as well.
No objection has been filed by the Dhr as well
as Jdr against the report of the Commissioner.
Thus the portion has been delivered to the Dhr
as per the decree passed in his favour in TS
16/83. Hence, the report of the Commissioner is
accepted. Accordingly, the present execution
proceeding is disposed of with full
satisfaction.”
This was on the basis of the report submitted by
the Civil Court Commissioner on the basis of the Amin
of the District and Sessions Judge Office, Kheonjhar
dated 25.01.2006.
8. When the matter stood thus, an application was
filed by the respondents herein under Section 47 of
the CPC seeking the following reliefs:
“Under the aforesaid circumstances the state
humbly prays:
a)To set aside the delivery of possession
effected by civil court commissioner in respect
of Plot No.54 in lieu of Plot No.53, on dated
b)To deliver the plot no.53 and plot no.54 to
the respective land lords, specifically by
5

the settlement officer Keonjhar through his
office Amins since he has prepared the map of
the village-Khapara Khai.
c)To injunct the opposite party specific
direction not to carry on any construction work
on the wrongly delivered area of plot no. 54
assuming the same to the plot no.53 as per the
report of CCC in Execution Case No.8/2000 until
full demarcation is made and for which act of
your kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty
bound remain ever pray.”
9. The said application was allowed by order dated
24.01.2007 by holding that the judgment debtor was
alleging wrongful delivery of a different plot of land
in view of the plot of land found in the decree.
Hence, the delivery of possession was erroneous.
Hence, the application under Section 47 of the CPC was
maintainable and therefore, the preliminary objections
raised by the decree-holder was rejected as being
without any merit.
10. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-
plaintiff/decree-holder preferred W.P No.1888/2007
before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned
order has dismissed the Writ Petition by holding that
6

the application under Section 47 of the CPC was in
accordance with law and hence, the objections filed
under Section 47 of the CPC were not maintainable.
Since the application was held to be maintainable and
the Writ Petition was dismissed, the appellant-
plaintiff/decree-holder is before this Court in this
appeal.
11. We have heard learned counsel Mr. S.K. Das for
the appellant. As noted above, there is no
representation on behalf of the respondents. We have
perused the material on record.
12. What is evident on hearing the learned counsel
for the appellant and on perusal of the material on
record, is the fact that the decree passed by the
first Appellate Court had been executed and by order
dated 26.08.2006, the execution case was disposed of
on 26.08.2006. It is only thereafter the application
was filed by the respondents herein in the month of
November 2006 invoking Section 47 of the CPC. Section
47 of the CPC reads as under:
7

“47. Questions to be determined by the Court
executing decree.-(1) All questions arising
between the parties to the suit in which the
decree was passed, or their representatives, and
relating to the execution, discharge or
satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined
by the Court executing the decree and not by a
separate suit.
[]
(3) Where a question arises as to whether any
person is or is not the representative of a
party, such question shall, for the purposes of
this section, be determined by the Court.
Explanation I.-For the purposes of this
section, a plaintiff whose suit has been
dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit
has been dismissed are parties to the suit.
Explanation II.-(a) For the purposes of this
section, a purchaser of property at a sale in
execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a
party to the suit in which the decree is passed;
and
(b) All questions relating to the delivery of
possession of such property to such purchaser
or his representative shall be deemed to be
questions relating to the execution, discharge
or satisfaction of the decree within the
meaning of this section.”
On a reading of Section 47 of the CPC it becomes
evident that all questions arising between the parties
to the suit in which the decree was passed or
8

their representatives relating to the execution
discharge or satisfaction of the decree must be
determined by the Court executing the decree and not
by a separate suit. This means that the said questions
must be determined during the process of the execution
of the decree it is during the pendency of the
execution and proceeding and not subsequently when the
execution proceeding is closed and the decree has been
executed to the satisfaction of the executing court.
In the instant case there was no such application
filed by the respondents herein during the pendency of
the execution proceedings by the appellant herein. It
is only thereafter when the execution proceeding was
concluded that the application under Section 47 of the
CPC was filed.
13. We find that in the facts and circumstances of
this case the application was not at all
maintainable. Hence, the said application ought to
have been dismissed. Alternatively, the respondents
herein could have assailed the order passed in the
9

execution petition, if it was so advised; the same not
having been done, the application seeking setting
aside of the delivery of possession could not have
been filed subsequent to the satisfaction of the
decree when there was no such objection raised during
the pendency of the execution proceedings. Further, in
the instant case the respondents had also stated that
they had no objection for the delivery of possession
to be given to the appellants herein by way of a memo
which is extracted herein for immediate reference
extracted:
“Memo on behalf of State
On perusal of the Report of Civil Court
Commissioner, it is observed that the delivery
of possession was effected in presence of the
Office Amin Sri Bipin Bihari Bal who is
signatory to the notice as well as the report.
No report of any anomaly has been reported as
yet from the Tahsildar, touching the sanctity of
delivery of possession, for which no objection
has been filed against the same.
Hence necessary orders may be passed without
prejudice to the interests of State.”
10

15. We find that the respondent-State in the instant
case was thereafter estopped from filing the said
application under Section 47 of the CPC. The
respondent-State could not have approbated and
reprobated on the question of handing over the
possession to the appellants herein.
Hence, for these aforesaid reasons, the appeal is
allowed by setting-aside the order dated 06.04.2010
passed in the W.P.(C) No.1888/2007 and order dated
24.01.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Anandpur in CMA No.40/2006 arising out of
execution proceeding No.8/2000.
No costs.
…………………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

…………………………………………………………J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 22, 2026
11

ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.4 SECTION XI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1920/2011
ANANDA CHANDRA PANDA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE COLLECTOR, KEONJHAR & ANOTHER Respondent(s)
(IA No.233443/2025-Application for Deletion)

Date : 22-01-2026 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For Appellant(s) Mr. V. K. Monga, AOR
Mr. Sanjay K Das, Adv.
Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Gouri Monga, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
IA No.233443/2025:
1. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
appellant No.1(i)-Savitri Panda has died and her legal
representatives are appellant Nos.(ii), (iii), (iv)
and (v). Hence, appellant No.1(i) may be deleted from
the array of parties.
2. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is
accepted. Accordingly, appellant No.1(i) is deleted
from the array of parties and the application being IA
No.233443/2025 is disposed of.
12

3. Appellants’ counsel to file amended memo of parties,
if not already filed.
Civil Appeal No(S). 1920/2011:
1. The Civil Appeal is allowed in terms of signed non-
reportable order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
( signed non-reportable order is placed on the file)
13