The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to grant a stay of execution based on sufficient cause shown, as provided in Order 26 Rule 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT

 Dr S.K. Panigrahi, J. - I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 2023 & ARBA No.14 of 2020

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants. None appears for the opposite party.

3. The petitioners/appellants challenge the judgment dated 16th November, 2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Khordha at Bhubaneswar in Arbitration Proceeding No.183 of 2010 wherein the learned District Judge dismissed the said petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants submits that the notice was issued on the respondent. In the meantime, the Execution Case No.61 of 2010 has been filed in the Executing Court. On 17.01.2023 the Executing Court has directed the Bank to prepare the D.D. for an amount of Rs.1,32,13,228/- in favour of DHR namely, Karunkar Mohanty by 24.01.2023. Hence, the appellants/petitioners have urgently mentioned the matter at 10.30 A.M. and the matter was taken up at 2 P.M.though this case was not listed today.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants submits that though the case was adjourned to 2nd of February,2023 but the court below is proceeding in the Execution Case and the same is fixed to 24.01.2023 for execution. He further submits that this Court had earlier issued notice to the opposite party/ respondent and in spite of valid service of notice, he has not appeared before this Court till date. However, the opposite party/respondent is proceeding in the execution case in the court below which will prejudicially affect the petitioner.

6.In the meantime, the I.A. No.05 of 2023 has been filed for preponement of date. Since this matter is taken up today, on being mentioned, learned counsel for the petitioners/ appellants does not want to press the said I.A. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of being not pressed.

7. So far as the I.A.No.6 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants drew the attention of this Court to the Order 26 Rule 21(1) of Code of Civil Procedure which is extracted hereunder;

'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 thereby, or if application for execution had been made thereto.'

8. Considering the submissions made in the I.A. No.6 of 2023 there shall be stay of further proceedings in Execution Case No.61 of 2010 pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar and the said Court shall not pass order to release Rs.1,32,13,228/- either in shape of cash or Demand Draft in favour of the present opposite party/Respondent-DHR. Namely, Karunakar Mohanty till the next date.

9. List this matter on 7th of February, 2023.

10. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.