The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of filing a certified copy of the decree along with the memorandum of appeal, and the court's consideration of the maintainability of the revision petitions under Section 115 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. These two civil revision petitions arise out similar set of facts involving the same parties and are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. As far as CVREV No.179 of 1995 is concerned, the Petitioner challenges an order dated 1st August, 1995 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar (ADJ) recalled an earlier order passed by on 9th December, 1994 admitting the Petitioner's Title Appeal No.58 of 1994 and rejecting the appeal as being "incomplete, defective and incompetent" in the absence of a copy of decree on the date, the same was presented and as the provision of Order XX Rule-6A CPC is also not applicable on the date the appeal is admitted." In this revision petition, which was admitted on 14th August, 1995 status quo was directed to be maintained regarding the suit property. Subsequently, on 15th September, 1995 the proceedings in Execution Case No. 87 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar was stayed until further orders. By another order dated 18th September, 1995 the earlier status quo order was vacated in view of the stay of the execution proceedings. That interim order has continued ever since.

3. As far as Civil Revision Petition No.274 of 1995 is concerned, it challenges an order dated 4th August, 1995 passed by the learned ADJ dismissing the subsequent appeal being T.A. No.32 of 1995 filed by the Petitioner challenging the judgment and decree dated 16th November and 13th November, 1994 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar in O.S. No.223 of 1982-I dismissing T.A. No.32 of 1995 for non-filing of the judgment and decree. In the said civil revision No.274 of 1995 this Court passed an order dated 24th February, 1995 recording the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that he seeks to convert the petition to a writ petition. However, it appears that the said prayer was not allowed. On 6th July, 2017 a petition for substituting Opposite Party No.2 was allowed.

4. The background facts are that one Haribandhu Das filed Title Suit No.223 of 1982 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC representing the Plaintiff No.2 seeking a declaration regarding “Permanent leasehold right over the land” and “for a decree of recovery of possession from Defendant Nos.1, 5 & 6.” The plaint was later amended to include a prayer for permanent injunction “restraining Defendants Nos.1, 5, 6, 18 and 19 from making any further construction and for a decree for mandatory injunction directing the Defendant Nos.1, 5, 6, 18 and 19 to demolish all construction on the suit land failing which the plaintiff may demolish all such construction/building etc. at the cost of Defendant Nos.1, 5, 6, 18 and 19 or in the alternative for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to use, utilize the building constructed on the suit land as Gandhi Smruti Soudha to provide facilities for study of Gandhian culture and ideology and to provide hostel accommodation for Adivasi, Harijan and other economic backward students, for costs and for any other relief or release to which the Plaintiff is entitled to under law.”

5. The present Petitioner was the defendant No.1 in the said suit. It denied the allegations and claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of a value from its vendor under a sale deed (Ext.9) after due permission and claimed to be making payment of salami to the State of Odisha. According to the Petitioner, it had spent substantial sums from its own sources and through loan from the financial institutions to construct and operate the ‘first-ever five star hotel in Odisha’.

6. The Orissa State Financial Corporation (OSFC) which had advanced loans to the Petitioner for the running of the said hotel, seized the hotel under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act (SFC Act). According to the Petitioner, the stay initially granted was vacated by the trial Court. Although notice was i