A court must issue reasoned orders for all applications, even after a case is disposed of, rejecting motions based solely on functus officio is contrary to natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 passed in I.A. No.44 of 2024 arising out of Execution Suit No.26 of 2010 in connection with the Judgment and Decree passed in the suit vide C.S. No.40 of 2006 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur.

2. The factual backgrounds of this CMP, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur passed an order on dated 30.08.2024 in Execution Suit No.26 of 2010 as follows:-

“The case record is posted today awaiting SR of writ of delivery of possession. SR of writ back with a report of the bailiff that, the execution of delivery of possession to the DHr is completed in presence of Executive Magistrate, police staff of Rengali PS and witnesses. Put up on 16.09.2024 for further order and objection, if any.”

3. As per the above order dated 30.08.2024, objection was invited by the learned Executing Court for further order in Execution Suit No.26/2010. For which, the petitioners in this CMP filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No.44 of 2024 on dated 16.09.2024 as an objection in Execution Suit No.26 of 2010.

On 17.09.2024, when I.A. No.44 of 2024 was put up before the learned Executing Court i.e. before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur passed the impugned order on that day i.e. 17.09.2024 as follows:

since the Court has become functus officio, the I.A. filed by the petitioners cannot be considered. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.

To which, the petitioners challenged filing this CMP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the same on the ground that, as per the order dated 30.08.2024 in Execution Suit No.26/2010, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur invited objection and when on the basis of such invitation of objection, the petitioners filed objection in time in the form of interlocutory application vide I.A. No.44 of 2024, then, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur should not have passed the impugned order disposing of that I.A. No.44 of 2024 as per the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 expressing that, since the Court has become functus officio, for which, the I.A. filed by the petitioners cannot be considered.

So, the aforesaid impugned order dated 17.09.2024 passed in I.A. No.44 of 2024 in connection with Execution Suit No.26 of 2010 is a self-contradictory order. When, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur himself invited objection in Execution Suit No.26/2010 and when the petitioners filed objection in time in the form of I.A. No.44/2024, then in that situation, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur should not have disposed of the said I.A. expressing that, the Court has become functus officio. For which, the impugned order is against the principles of natural justice.

4. It is very fundamental in law that, whenever any application or petition is filed either in a pending case or in a disposed of case, such petition must be answered by the Court through a reasoned order, but the Court cannot avoid to dispose of such petition expressing that, the Court has become functus officio.

5. Therefore, in view of such principles of law, the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 passed in I.A. No.44 of 2024 arising out of Execution Suit No.26 of 2010 in connection with the suit vide C.S. No.40 of 2006 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur cannot be sustainable under law. The same is liable to be interfered with throug