IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.625 of 2025 Smt. Jyoti Suri (cid:0)«(cid:0)(cid:17) Petitioner Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate -Versus-

Sabita Ben Patel and others (cid:0)«(cid:0)(cid:17) Opposite Parties None CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER Order 13.05.2025 No.

01. 1. Heard Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. No notices are issued to opposite party Nos.1 to 5 as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. Notice need not be issued to the other opposite parties as the same is not necessary, hence, dispensed with.

3. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 18^th March, 2025 passed in Execution Case No.6 of 1999 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur, whereby, an application at Annexures-2 and 3 has been dismissed. 4. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a stranger to the suit and resisted the execution with an application filed under Section 151 CPC as per Annexure-3 and the same was followed by Annexure-2 to treat the same as one under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC but both have been dismissed vide Annexure- 1. The submission is that learned court below should have considered such an objection of the petitioner as an outsider in terms of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC but it has been declined due to long pendency of the suit since 1999 and also the execution proceeding.

5. The suit is at the instance of the predecessor-in-interest of opposite party Nos.1 to 5 succeeded by them and the execution proceeding stands levied against opposite party Nos.6 to 9, who are the JDRs, wherein, application as per Annexure-3 was moved but then, without considering the same and the subsequent one at Annexure-2 and treating the same as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, the plea was rejected. The Court is of the view that the nomenclature of an application is not material rather substance thereof and hence, learned court below should have entertained Annexure-3 as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC since the petitioner moved the same opposing the execution in respect of the suit property, The learned court below could not have declined the plea of the petitioner on account of long pendency of the execution proceeding. Since, such an application as per Annexure-3 is received from the petitioner who is a stranger to the suit and for that matter, the execution proceeding, it should have been dealt with for a decision according to law instead of Annexure-1, hence, therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued.

6. Accordingly, it is ordered.

7. In the result, the CMP stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18th March, 2025 in Execution Case No.6 of 1999 is hereby set aside with a direction to learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur to consider Annexure-3 in terms of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and thereafter, to pass necessary order disposing it of as per and in accordance with law and till such time, the proceeding therein to be deferred. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs.

8. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules .

(R.K. Pattanaik)

Judge TUDU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Page 3 of 3 Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 14-May-2025 19:47:29