IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 29192 of 2025 Dr. Prasenjeet Mohanty ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra, Adv. -Versus- State Bank of India & Ors. ……. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 28.10.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek a direction from this Court to Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2/Bank to release the mortgaged gold ornaments in their favour in respect of the loan A/c. No.01591012331. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the father of the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.3 had taken a gold loan bearing A/C. No.01591012331 from the Opposite Parties/Bank in the year, 1985 by mortgaging the gold ornaments weighing 400 grams. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contends that after death of the father of the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.3, the Petitioners have paid the entire loan amount and on such repayment, the NOC has been issued in favour Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 28-Oct-2025 18:18:38 Signature Not Verified 2 of the Petitioners by the Bank. The Petitioners have approached the Bank for returning of the gold ornaments proportionately 3/4th share of it. In the meantime, there was some family dispute between the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.3. Since, the Opposite Party No.3 did not co-operate the Petitioners, the Bank has not been able to release the mortgaged ornaments. 6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2/Bank submits that since the Petitioners had approached the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum Khurda, at Bhubaneswar vide C.D. Case No.72 of 2010 wherein the said court had suggested the Petitioners to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance, the Petitioners instead of doing so have filed this Writ Petition. 7. In such view of the matter and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that since all the co-sharers are not on same page, this Court cannot pass such order. However, the Petitioners are granting liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court for appropriate relief. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.