Advocates:
['M/S SANGRAM SENAPATI', 'M/S T R MEHER', '', 'B K BARAL', 'P K MISHRA', 'R K MEHER']

Page 1 of 10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No.1699 OF 2017

All Orissa State Bank Officers9Housing

Cooperative Ltd., Bhubaneswar

.....

Petitioner

Mr. Sangram, Senapati, Advocate

-versus-

Surendra Sahoo and others

&.

Opp. Parties

Mr. T.R. Meher, Advocate

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

15.07.2022

15.

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

The Petitioner in this CMP seeks to assail the order dated

17^th October, 2017 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Senior Civil

Judge, Bhubaneswar in Execution Case No.10 of 2013, whereby

he allowed an application filed by the Opposite Party No.9 to

implead her as a party to the execution case.

3.

Mr. Senapati, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits the

litigation has a chequered carrier. An agreement was executed

between the Petitioner-Society and Opposite Party Nos.1 to 8 for

sale of Plot No.119 under Khata No.158 to an extent of Ac.2.800

decimals situated in mouza Kantabada under Bhubaneswar Tahasil

in the district of Khurdha (for short 8the case land9). Pursuant to

the said agreement for sale, the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 8 received

the full consideration of Rs.60,88,000/- on 8^th August, 2012. In

spite of receiving full consideration money, no sale deed was

executed within the stipulated time. Hence, the Petitioner-Society

filed C.S. No.1313 of 2012 for specific performance of contract

// 2 //

Page 2 of 10

before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar

seeking for a direction to the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 8 to present

the sale deed already prepared on 8^th August, 2012 to alienate the

case land in its favour and for other consequential relief. In the

said suit, a compromise petition was filed by the Petitioner in one

hand and Opposite Party Nos.1 to 8 on the other on 29^th January,

2013. All the parties appeared before the trial Court on 5^th March,

2013 and the matter was posted to 24^th March, 2013 for

consideration. Learned trial Court on consideration of the

compromise petition and on being satisfied that the compromise

was executed without any undue influence and coercion and that it

was lawful, decreed the suit on 24^th March, 2013 before Lok

Adalat. Since the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 8 did not comply with

the direction made in the compromise decree, Execution Case

No.10 of 2013 was filed. The executing court vide order dated 1^st

August, 2014 directed the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 8 to present the

sale deed on or before 18^th August, 2014 before the Sub-Registrar,

Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Assailing the said compromise decree,

the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 8 filed CMP No.1313 of 2014 before

this Court. Said CMP was dismissed on merit vide order dated 3^rd

November, 2014 under Annexure-4 series. The Opposite Party

No.4 being not satisfied preferred W.A. No.387 of 2014

challenging the order passed in CMP No.1313 of 2014 impleading

the other Opposite Parties to the CMP as proforma Respondents.

Writ Appeal was dismissed by order dated 12^th February, 2015

holding it to be an abuse of process of Court with a caution to the

Appellant therein to be careful in future.

// 3 //

Page 3 of 10

3.1.

Thereafter, Opposite Party No.9 filed a petition for

impleading her as a party to the execution proceeding stating that

she is a co-sharer in the case land. On consideration of the

petition, the impugned order has been passed on 17^th October,

2017 under Annexure-6.

4.

It is submitted by Mr. Senapati, learned counsel for the

Petitioner-Society that counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party

No.9 on behalf of all the Opposite Parties clearly shows their

collusion and to see that the decree passed by a competent Court of

law is frustrated. Relying upon the decisions in the case of Kasturi

-v- Iyyamperumal