IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1014 of 2010 Tanu @ Tanu Chandra Naik @ Nayak and others …. Petitioners Represented by Adv.– Mr. A.K. Nath, Advocate -Versus- Indramani Naik and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.P. Mishra, Senior Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Order No. ORDER 25.07.2025 14. 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 6th October, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in Civil Suit No.79 of 2009 by which, an application for stay of the Execution Case No.8 of 2007 and Execution Case No. 9 of 2007 is dismissed. 2. The application for stay of the execution proceeding was taken out in the aforesaid suit solely on the ground that the suit was instituted for the relief in the form of a declaration that the judgment and decree passed in C.S. No.121 of 2003 and C.S. No.122 of 2003 are illegal, void and inoperative. Since the final decree passed in the said suit was put into execution, an application was taken out to stay the further proceeding of the said execution cases on the premise as stated hereinabove. 3. It is sought to be contended before the Court that the property involved in the said suit is identical and similar to the property involved in the earlier suit in which, the decree was passed and an execution is levied and, therefore, in the event, the execution case is allowed to continue, it will impact the determination of the issues involved in the said suit. 4. The record would reveal that prior to the institution of the said suit from the judgment whereof the execution case arose, a suit was filed way back in the year 1976 for partition and separation of the shares which was decreed in preliminary form on 31st March, 1977 and subsequently, the final decree was passed in the said suit and an execution was levied subsequent thereto. 5. It appears from the tenet of the order impugned in the instant writ petition that pursuant to the said final decree, the delivery of possession was also given to the respective parties and since then, the parties are enjoying their respective allocated portion to the exclusion of the other co-sharers. 6. If a suit for declaration of the decree to be void is instituted, it does not involve the automatic stay of the execution proceedings unless the Court finds that the continuance of the execution proceeding shall impact the decree to be passed in the said suit. The issue involved in the said suit relates to the legality, validity and the sanctity of the judgment and decree passed by the competent court and so long the same is declared by decreeing the suit, it does not ipso facto invite the other proceeding to remain stayed unless the issues are overlapping. 7. This Court thus does not find any infirmity in the impugned order in dismissing an application by the learned Judge. The instant writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 8. However, we request the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar to expedite the hearing of the said suit and shall decide the issues involved therein independent of any observation and/or finding made therein. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice S.K. Guin/PA