The Executing Court cannot grant relief beyond the original decree, and disputes over execution claims must follow due legal process.

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

1. This C.M.P. involves a challenge to the order passed by the Executing Court at Annexure-5.

2. Undisputed fact remains; a civil suit was brought by at least six Plaintiffs. The suit was decided on contest with the following direction:-

“That the suit is decreed on contest against the defendant, but in the circumstances without costs. The defendant is directed to reinstate the plaintiffs and to pay back wages, until plaintiffs are removed from services in due process of law.”

3. Undisputedly there has been subsequent challenge to this judgment & decree, but decree remains final. For the submission of both sides and looking to the order quoted hereinabove, it appears, on the premises of not working out of the judgment and decree by the judgment debtor an execution proceeding was initiated and this execution proceeding got registered as Execution Case No.13 of 1999. On receipt of notice the judgment debtor appeared in the Execution Proceeding and filed its objection to the claim made in the Execution proceeding in sum and substance answering thereby that the decree holders in the worse entitled to back wages at least till the date of judgment and decree. Particularly keeping in view that the plaintiffs did not submit their joining presumably each of the plaintiffs working elsewhere and in receipt of more. There is of course controversy between the parties on the joining and/or refusal to join. The decree holder made an allegation that in spite of their attempt in the matter of joining back, the establishment is not allowing them to join and on the other hand there is objection to such claim of the decree holder by the judgment debtor in making a statement that there has been no attempt of joining back, however the judgment debtor did not dispute to the entitlement of the decree holders falling through the judgment involved. The judgment debtor, however, objected the claim of the decree holder on their claim on joining back on the premises that there is in fact no return of a single plaintiff submitting their joining report.

Hearing the execution proceeding the Executing Court i.e. the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar in disposal of the Execution Case No.13 of 1999 recording the rival contentions of the parties came to observe that in the pendency of the Execution Proceeding there appears, there has been certain development in consideration of an application U/s.47 of the C.P.C. There has also been bringing in the further statement of claim raising and/or brining future claims. Finally the calculation made by the decree holders dated 25.08.2014 was taken up in execution and the Executing Court appears to have disposed of the execution proceeding almost accepting the claims made finally in the calculation sheet dated 25.08.2014 finally and recovery of amount was directed to be made as per the calculation made on 25.08.2014. Finally considering that there is sufficient amount under attachment the matter was posted to 11.11.2021 for releasing the dues from the attached amount in favour of the decree holder and for further orders.

4. The C.M.P. is filed assailing such order.

5. The matter was taken up for admission along with the I.A. This Court finds, a single Bench of this Court in entertaining the C.M.P. while issuing notice passed interim direction staying operation of the impugned order at Annexure-11.

6. Challenging the impugned order Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners taking this Court to the nature of the suit, the relief claimed therein and the order passed in disposal of the suit vide judgment at Annexure-1 on contest of the parties, while submitting that there may not be any confusion in the direc