Writ under Article 226 is not maintainable against judicial orders in civil proceedings; supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 remains available for such cases.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, C.J.

1. This intra-Court appeal arises out of order dated 9^th January, 2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.34461 of 2025.

2. An interesting point emerged in the instant writ appeal, arising from an order dated 9^th January, 2026 passed by the Single Bench, whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Commercial Court in an execution proceeding was set aside, as to whether the said order is amenable to be challenged by invoking the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The prelude to the litigations can be traced that upon a dispute having arisen between the parties in relation to a contract, the special fora relating to an arbitration was invoked and the Arbitral Tribunal entered into a reference and invited the parties to exchange their pleadings. After the full-fledged trial, the said arbitral proceeding culminated into an arbitral award against the State of Odisha which remained unchallenged as either no application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed or the same having filed, stood dismissed. The moment the award remained unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged, it is amenable to be put into execution as a decree of a Civil Court which in fact has been resorted to by the appellant in approaching the Commercial Court as the subject-matter of dispute comes within the ambit of the definition of “commercial dispute” enshrined in Section 2 (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

4. It is undisputed that the notices were served upon the Judgment Debtor/Respondent and appearance was secured before the Executing Court through a pleader but the record would reveal that frequent adjournments were sought in order to avoid the execution of money decree. Time and again, the Executing Court reminded the Judgment Debtor of their solemn duty, liability and the responsibility to implement the said decree, but there appears to be a lackadaisical attitude on the part of the said Judgment Debtor in defraying the execution of a decree which tantamount to denial of usufruct, which the Decree Holder is entitled to. An application was taken out by the appellant-Decree Holder as to why the Judgment Debtor shall not be put into a civil prison having not only defied the money decree but also the conduct would percolate a sense that they are not interested to honor the said decree passed against the said Judgment Debtor. The said application was taken up on 17^th October, 2025 in presence of the Judgment Debtor and the record would reveal that an adjournment was sought by the Judgment Debtor on the said date but the pleader did not appear at the time when the matter was called on by the learned Judge. As a fait accompli the time petition got dismissed and a show cause was directed to be issued upon the Judgment Debtor as to why he may not be put into a civil prison. On the next date, the usual methodology was adopted by the Judgment Debtor in filing the adjournment petition which was again rejected by the Court and subsequently an order detaining the Judgment Debtor/Respondent into civil prison was passed.

5. Astonishingly the respondent approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which is categorized as the writ petition and listed before the Bench having a Roster to take up the writ petition of such nature. By the impugned order, the writ petition is allowe