Facts
The petitioners filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur in Execution Suit No. 26 of 2010
Source reference: p. 1On 30.08.2024, the Executing Court recorded the completion of delivery of possession but specifically invited objections for further orders, posting the matter to 16.09.2024
Source reference: p. 2In response, the petitioners filed an objection via I.A. No. 44 of 2024
Source reference: p. 2However, on 17.09.2024, the learned Civil Judge disposed of the I.A. without consideration, stating that the Court had become functus officio
Source reference: p. 2The petitioners challenged this as a violation of natural justice and a self-contradictory exercise of judicial power
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the Executing Court could validly dismiss an objection as functus officio after explicitly inviting such an objection in a previous order
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the failure of a court to provide a reasoned order on an interlocutory application violates the principles of natural justice
Source reference: p. 3-4Law Applied
The Court applied the principles governing judicial Review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Source reference: p. 1It relied on the fundamental legal principle that every application or petition filed in a court of law—whether in a pending or disposed of case—must be answered through a reasoned order
Source reference: p. 3The court further applied the doctrine that a court cannot evade its duty to adjudicate by claiming it is functus officio when the law or its own prior invitations for objection require a substantive hearing
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The High Court found the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 to be "self-contradictory"
Source reference: p. 3It reasoned that since the Civil Judge had themselves invited objections in the order dated 30.08.2024, they were legally and procedurally bound to consider any objections filed in response
Source reference: p. 3The Court noted that by summarily disposing of I.A. No. 44 of 2024 on the grounds of being functus officio, the lower court acted against the principles of natural justice
Source reference: p. 3Justice A.C. Behera emphasized that judicial discipline requires a court to provide a reasoned response to any petition filed before it rather than avoiding the issue through a technical plea of lack of jurisdiction after the fact
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The High Court allowed the CMP in part and quashed the impugned order dated 17.09.2024
The Court held that the order was unsustainable in law and remitted the matter (I.A. No. 44 of 2024) back to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur
Source reference: p. 4The lower court was directed to decide the application afresh on its merits after hearing both parties, with a mandate to complete the proceeding within four months
Source reference: p. 4The parties were further directed to appear before the lower court on 23.03.2026
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
Dinabandhu Oram and Others v. Dukhi Oram and Others [C.M.P. No. 1311 of 2024]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in