Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1022 of 2026 Yashmin Nikhath ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv.- Mr. Purna Chandra Das -versus- Anil Kumar Verma and another ..... Opposite Parties CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 29.06.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The Defendant No.3 in the Civil Suit No.69 of 2016 is the Petitioner in the present CMP application which has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the order dated 11.05.2026 passed in Execution Case No.12 of 2025 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rourkela in the above noted Execution Case. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Opposite Party No.1-Plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money along with consequential reliefs. In the suit, the Defendants No. 2 & 3 were added as a party. He further Page 2 of 4. contended that the suit was decreed ex parte against the Defendant Nos.2 and 3. After the suit was decreed ex parte, the Plaintiff immediately filed the above noted Execution Case No.12 of 2025 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rourkela. After receiving notice in the Execution Case, the Defendant No.2 immediately filed C.M.A. No.46 of 2025 for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree under Order-9 Rule-13 read with Rule- 151 of C.P.C. While the above noted CMA was pending, the learned executing court was proceeding with the execution case. Accordingly, the Defendants-JDrs appeared before the Executing Court and moved an application under Order-21 Rule-26 of C.P.C. Such application having been rejected vide order dated 11.05.2026 at Annexure-1 to the CMP application, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that presently the learned Executing Court is proceeding in the Execution Case. He further submitted that in the event ex parte decree is allowed to be executed, then the prayer of the Petitioner in the CMA application will become infructuous and that such Execution Case of the decree shall cause irreparable loss to the Defendants No.2 and 3, which are likely to suffer without getting an opportunity to contest the suit. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 is unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same should be set aside and further proceeding in Execution Case Page 3 of 4. No.12 of 2025 be stayed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and on a careful examination of the CMP application as well as the documents annexed thereto, further on a close scrutiny of order dated 11.05.2026, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality by following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 and Periyammal (Dead) Thr. Lrs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. Etc., reported in 2025 (1) OLR (SC)-833. However, this Court on a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, observes that the Defendant Nos.2 and Defendant No.3-the present Petitioner, have been set ex parte. Although they have showed their bona fide and filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was registered as CMA No.46 of 2025 and despite notice having been validly served on the Opposite Parties in the said application, such application has not been finally adjudicated by the learned trial court. 7. In the aforesaid factual background, while disposing of the CMP application, this Court directs the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela to make every endeavour to consider the CMA No.46 of 2025 after providing due opportunity to all concerned and dispose of such application within a period of two months. It is further directed that till disposal of the above noted CMA application, the learned Executing Court shall proceed with Page 4 of 4. the execution proceeding. However, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner for a period of two months. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CMP stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis