Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.358 of 2025 Mousimi @ Mousumi Sahu ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Prasanna Kumar Rath -versus- Pritam Infra Pvt. Ltd., Balasore and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - M/s Dwarika Prasad Mohanty, T.K. Mohanty, P.K. Swain, M. Pal, R. Mohanty CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 29.01.2026 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the defendant-Petitioner in Execution Case No.32 of 20213, which arises out of C.S. No.230 of 1997 now pending before the learned 1st Addl. Civil Judge (SD) Balasore has approached this Court challenging order dated 29.01.2025 passed in the above noted Execution Case. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that in the execution case the Petitioner has filed an application under Page 2 of 3. Section 47 of CPC. During the pendency of the aforesaid application under Section 47 of CPC, the Petitioner moved another petition with a prayer to call for a document of the year 1946. Such application to call for the old document having been rejected by the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 by the learned Executing Court, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application. 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties on the other hand submitted that by filing the present CMP application the Petitioner is trying to stall the execution proceeding. He further submitted that in the execution proceeding the decree passed in the suit in C.S. No.230 of 1997 which was confirmed in RFA No.23/161 and further confirmed in R.S.A. No.444 of 2009 is sought to be executed. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties at this juncture contended that although the suit is of the year 1997 and the decree passed therein has already been confirmed by two forums, however, the plaintiffs are deprived of the opportunity of enjoying the suits of decree. He further alleged that the present application is nothing, but a ploy to unnecessarily drag the execution proceeding. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties contended that the present application is devoid of merit and hence the same should be dismissed. 6. On perusal of the record, it appears that in the execution proceeding the defendant-JDR No.3 filed an application under Order-16 Rule-6 of CPC for production and inspection of documents. By filing such application, the defendant-JDR No.3 sought for a direction from the Executing Court to call for a document, i.e. an order dated 24.06.1946 passed by the Endowment Page 3 of 3. Commissioner, Cuttack in a proceeding under Section 19 of the OHRE Act. On perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that such an application in an execution proceeding is not maintainable. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing order dated 29.01.2025, thereby rejecting the prayer of the defendant-JDR No.3. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the application filed under Section 47 of CPC by the defendant-JDR No.3 is still pending, this Court disposes of the present CMP application by directing the learned trial Court to make every endeavor to hear and dispose of the objection under Section 47 of CPC after providing opportunity to both sides within a period of two months from the date of communication a copy of today’s order. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the suit is of the year 1997 that the execution case is pending since 2023, the learned trial Court shall make every endeavor to expedite the execution. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the CMP application stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout