SANDHYARANI DAS vs MINATI JENA @ PATRA

Court
Odisha High Court

CMP/1624/2026
ODHC010718992026
2026:OHC:218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


CMP No.1624 of 2026

[ CNR No.- ODHC010718992026 ]


An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India




1. Sandhyarani Das
2. Bhaktahari Das
3. Biswaranjan Das

4. Bandana Das
5. Sova Das @ Nayak
6. Sanjay Jena @ Sanjay Kumar Jena
7. Ajay Jena @ Ajay Kumar Jena

8. Damodar Jena
9. Lambodar Jena
10. Gadadhar Jena
11. Pravakar Jena
…





















Petitioners


(Judgment debtors)


-versus-

1. Minati Jena @ Patra
2. Ratnakara Giri

3. Tapan Kumar Dey ….






Opp. Parties
(Decree holders)



Advocates who appeared in this case through hybrid mode:

For Petitioner : Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate

For Opposite Parties

CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
HON’BLE MISS


CMP No.1624 of 2026 Page 1 of 7





JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
th
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 15 October, 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Savitri Ratho, J. This CMP has been filed for setting aside the order dated
st
19.08.2026, passed by the learned 1 Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Balasore in Execution Case No. 45 of 2023 under Annexure-1 and to
allow the CMA petitions under Annexures-8 and 9.
BACKGROUND FACTS
2. Petitioners are the Defendants in Civil Suit No. 211 of 2005-1,
which has been decreed ex-parte on 17.05.2013. Thereafter, on
08.09.2021, the final decree proceeding was disposed of, permitting
the Defendants/ Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 to bring fresh final
decree proceeding for allotment of shares. CMA No.78 of 2023 has
been filed by Petitioners No. 1 to 5 for setting aside the ex-parte
preliminary decree dated 20.06.2013 and CMA No. 79 of 2023 has
been filed by Petitioners No. 1 to 5 for setting aside the ex-parte final
decree dated 08.09.2021.
3. Execution Case No.45 of 2023 been filed by the decree
holders, under Order 21 Rule 11(2) of C.P.C. for execution of the
decree, where prayer was made by the petitioners who are the
CMP No.1624 of 2026 Page 2 of 7



judgment debtors for stay of the execution proceeding till disposal of
CMA No. 78 of 2023 and CMA No. 79 of 2023.
IMPUGNED ORDER
4. This application has been dismissed by order dated 19.08.2026
, holding that mere institution or pendency of proceedings under
Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C do not automatically operate as a stay of the
decree. The decree continues to remain binding and executable unless
it is set aside or its execution is stayed by a competent Court. As no
orders staying the operation of execution of either preliminary decree
or final decree has been produced, the execution proceeding cannot be
kept in abeyance merely because the CMAs are pending.
5. The learned Executing Court has also held that death of
Defendant No. 10 is not in any way relevant for rendering the final
decree proceeding a nullity, as no share has been allotted to Defendant
No.10.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that as
CMA No. 78 of 2023 and CMA No. 79 of 2023 filed foe setting aside
the ex parte preliminary decree and final decree are pending, unless
further proceedings in the Execution case are stayed till their disposal,
CMP No.1624 of 2026 Page 3 of 7



both the CMAs will be rendered infructuous. He further submits that
in the two CMAs, notice on the decree holders is sufficient and the
two CMAs are otherwise ready for disposal.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
7. In view of the nature of order I propose to pass, I do not think
it necessary to issue notice to the Opposite Parties (decree holders) as
that will delay disposal of this case as well as the execution
proceedings.
8.
Under Order 21, Rule 26 of the CPC, the executing Court has
the power to stay the proceedings for a reasonable period to enable
the judgment debtor to obtain a stay order from the Appellate Court
or the Court which passed the decree. The provision is extracted
below :-
“ Order 21, Rule 26 . When Court may stay execution:-( 1)
The Court to which a decree has been sent for execution
shall, upon sufficient cause being shown, stay the execution of
such decree for a reasonable time, to enable the judgment-
debtor to apply to the Court by which the decree was passed
or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the
decree or the execution thereof, for an order to stay
execution, or for any other order relating to the decree or
execution which might have been made by such Court of first
instance or Appellate Court if execution had been issued
CMP No.1624 of 2026 Page 4 of 7



thereby, or if application for execution had been made
thereto. ”
9. The two CMAs have been filed after a long delay but will be
decided by the learned court before whom they have been filed, in
accordance with law. The prayer to allow the CMA Petions under
Annexure 8 and 9 is therefore misconceived and is rejected.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the two
CMAs are ready for disposal and if the execution proceedings are not
stayed the two CMAs will be rendered infructuous. He also submits
that the petitioners will co-operate for expeditious disposal of the two
CMAs.
11. Therefore, after perusing the impugned order and considering
the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners, I am
satisfied that the interest of justice will be met if a direction is issued
to the learned court before whom the CMAs are pending to dispose of
the same within a short stipulated period and to stay the proceedings
in the execution case till such specified period only.
12. Staying the proceedings in the Execution case till disposal of
the two CMAs will give undue scope to the petitioners to take
advantage of such order and delay the disposal of the CMAs and
consequently the execution proceedings which are pending since
CMP No.1624 of 2026 Page 5 of 7



2023. This would cause prejudice to the judgment holders who will
not be able to enjoy the fruits of the decree for an indefinite period
and would therefore defeat the interest of justice and will be against
the mandate of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of
Periyammal v. V Rajamani : 2025 INSC 329 and Rahul S. Saha v.
Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others : ( 2021)6 SCC 418 .
st
13. The CMP is therefore disposed of directing the learned 1
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balasore (before whom the CMAs are
pending) to dispose of CMA No. 78 of 2023 and CMA No. 79 of
2023 by the end of November 2026 i.e 30.11.2026.
14. Till 30.11.2026, the proceeding in Execution Case No. 45 of
2023 shall remain stayed.
15. This direction is being issued relying on the submission of the
learned counsel that the two CMAs are ready for disposal and that the
petitioners shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the two CMAs.
16. It is made clear that the learned Executing Court is free to
proceed with the Execution case in accordance with law after
30.11.2026.
17.
As this order has been passed without issuing notice to the
Opposite Parties, they are at liberty to approach this Court for
CMP No.1624 of 2026 Page 6 of 7



modification / recall of this order in case there has been any
suppression of material facts by the Petitioners resulting in serious
prejudice to them.
st
18. Copy of this order be communicated to the learned 1
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balasore forthwith by the Registry.
19. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge


Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated, the 15 October, 2026/RKS / Puspa

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 17-Oct-2026 20:02:37
CMP No.1624 of 2026 Page 7 of 7