IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10118 of 2004 Akapati Bhaskar Patro …. Petitioner Mr. C. Ananda Rao, Advocate -versus- Trinath Sahu and another …. Opp. Parties Mr. S. P. Mishra, Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 19.03.2026 01. 1. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks the following relief: “It is therefore prayed that, Your Lordships would be graciously pleased to consider the facts stated above, admit the writ petition and issue rule NISI in the nature of writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ or writs, asking the Opp. parties to show cause as to why the order vide Annexure-3 in directing to furnish property Security shall not be quashed. And if the Opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient or no cause be pleased to make the said rule absolute and allow the writ petition.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is stated at the Bar that the original suit as well as the cross-suit having been disposed of, the matter was initially pending in appeal before this Court in view of the then prevailing amendment to the Civil Courts Act. Subsequently, upon further amendment to the Civil Courts Act restoring jurisdiction to the Court of the District Judge, both the appeals stood transferred to the court of the learned District Judge and are presently pending for disposal. 4. Having regard to the fact that the original suit had been decreed in favour of the Petitioner, wherein the trial court held that the plaintiff was not liable to pay rent in view of the terms of the agreement, the direction issued in Title Suit No.94 of 1992 requiring the plaintiff to furnish property security has been made the subject matter of challenge in the appeal. The learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Ganjam in Title Appeal No.12 of 2002 has also passed an order staying execution proceedings, taking note of the hardship likely to be faced by the Appellant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is ascertained that E.P. No.13 of 2004 has since been dropped by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division vide order dated 15.03.2023 for non-prosecution. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties that the matter is presently pending before the competent appellate forum, namely the Court of the Additional District Judge, Ganjam at Berhampur and has not been disposed of, the issues raised in the present writ petition can appropriately be adjudicated in the said appeal. Consequently, the present writ petition has virtually become infructuous. Be that as it may, the effect of the interim order passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge staying further proceedings in the execution case as well as the direction relating to furnishing of security in T.S. No.94 of 1992 being subject to the outcome of the pending appeal, no interference is required here in this writ and in consequence, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. It is, however, made clear that observations made in this order shall no way affect the merits of the appeal pending before the learned District Judge. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan Designation: Senior Stenographer