IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.129 of 2025 Hari@Harish Chandra Behera …. Petitioner Mr.A.P.Bose, Advocate -versus- Niladri Rout and others …. Opp.Parties Mr.B.Baug, Sr.Advocate for O.P.No.1 & 2 Mr.A.K.Panda, Advocate for O.P.No.3, 10 & 11 CORAM: SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY ORDER 7.8.2025 Order No. 7. 1. Heard Mr.Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Baug, learned senior counsel for Opposite Parties 1 and 2 as well as Mr.Panda, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 3, 10 & 11. 2. Present CMP is directed against the order dated 8th October 2024 passed in CMA No.180 of 2021 arising out of Execution Case No.60 of 2016, wherein the prayer to amend the petition under Order 21 Rule 99 & 101 CPC has been refused by learned executing court on the ground that the same has no nexus and necessity for the purpose. 3. Admittedly, in the execution case, the present Petitioner being the 3rd party has filed his petition under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC raising his objection against his dispossession from part of suit property. In order to substantiate his stand, certain amendments were sought for by present Petitioner regarding filing of earlier suit in C.S.No.130 of 2022 pending in CMA No.53 of 2024 filed for restoration of the suit, as well as the other suit pending in C.S.No.321 of 2023 filed by Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: A.R.-Cum-Sr.Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 07-Aug-2025 17:44:00 Signature Not Verified another party impleading the plaintiff and defendants as well as the present Petitioner therein over part of the suit property involved in the present suit. 4. In the impugned order, it is seen that according to the opinion of the learned executing court, the proposed amendment does not change the nature and character of the original petition filed under Order 21 Rule 99, CPC. But since such amendment sought for has no nexus and necessity for the purpose of adjudication, as per the opinion of the executing court, such prayer for amendment was refused. 5. Upon hearing all parties, as it felt that the present petition under Order 21 rule 99, CPC is with regard to possession of present Petitioner in respect of part property, therefore such amendments sought for by him in order to substantiate his case of possession cannot be said as unnecessary and without any nexus at this stage, particularly considering the scope of adjudication under Order 21 Rule 99, CPC in the context of prayer of the Petitioner. As such, the prayer for amendment sought for by the present Petitioner is allowed and the learned executing court is directed to take necessary steps in that regard. 6. Before disposing of the CMP, it needs to be observed here that according to the admission of present Petitioner as well as present Opposite Parties 1 & 2, the petition under Order 21 Rule 99, CPC is in respect of an area comprising Ac.0.005 decimals 5 kadi as per the schedule furnished in the petition (Annexure-1). 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CMP is disposed of. ( B.P. Routray) Judge C.R.Biswal Designation: A.R.-Cum-Sr.Secretary