Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.619 of 2026 Sukanti Pattnaik ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Gautam Mukherji, Sr. Adv. -versus- Parbati Dei & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Dwarika Prasad Mohanty CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 23.04.2026 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Sri G.Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, one of the judgment debtors in execution case No.2 of 2025 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Second Court, Cuttack, who happens to be the defendant in TS No.150 of 1996 has approached this court by filing the present CMP application, thereby challenging order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned executing court on the Page 2 of 5. application of the Petitioner-JDR filed under Section 47 of the CPC. 4. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contented that the impugned order dated 06.01.2026 is unsustainable only on the ground that the grounds he had specifically raised before the learned executing court has not been specifically dealt with and answered by the learned executing court. Drawing attention of this court to the impugned order dated 06.01.2026 at Annexure-4, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contented before this court that in entire impugned order, the learned executing court has not dealt with or discussed the grounds raised in the Section 47 CPC application of the Petitioner. In para-4 of the impugned order dated 06.01.2026, the learned executing court while concluding and giving a finding on the grounds raised has not discussed or concluded a definite finding to the grounds raised by the JDR in his application under Section 47 of the CPC. The application of the Petitioner under Section 47 of the CPC has been rejected solely relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Periyammal (Dead) through LRS and Others vs. V. Rajamani and Another decided in SLP(C) No.8490- 8492 of 2020. It such view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contented that the impugned order dated 06.01.2026 at Annexure-4 is unsustainable in law. 5. Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-Decree Holder on the other hand contented that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner under Section 47 of the CPC. While supporting the impugned order dated 06.01.2026, learned counsel for the Page 3 of 5. Opposite Party contented that the learned trial court has passed a detailed order and the learned court below has also taken note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Periyammal’s case (supra). While referring to the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Periyammal judgment, learned counsel for the Opposite Party emphasized the importance and the relevance of early disposal of the execution cases as has been emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment. He further submitted that a timeline has been fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for conclusion of the execution cases. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-decree holder contented that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality. 6. Having heard the counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful analysis of their submissions and further on a close scrutiny of the documents annexed to the CMP application as well as on a thorough examination of the impugned order dated 06.01.2026, this Court found that although the Petitioner has raised specific issues in his application under Section 47 of the CPC, a copy of which has also been annexed to the present application at Annexure 2, such issues have not been specifically dealt with and answered by the learned executing court. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order dated 06.01.2026, this court found that the learned trial court has laid emphasis on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Periyammal’s case (supra) and, finally, has come to a conclusion that since the execution case is pending since 2025 and that in the meantime the six months period as fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Periyammal’s case (supra) has Page 4 of 5. already expired and it is only with the intention to linger the proceeding that the JDRs have filed the application under Section 47 of the CPC, the learned trial court has finally rejected the application under Section 47 of the CPC. 7. On a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case and on a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 06.01.2026, this court observed that the issues raised in the application at Annexure-2 has not been specifically dealt with and answered by the learned trial court. It is needless to mention here that Section 47 of the CPC confers a right upon the parties to raise certain questions within the purview of Section 47 to be raised before the executing court by the parties to the execution proceeding. Such statutory right cannot be merely taken away by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was delivered in the context of delay in disposal of the execution cases. It is true that the execution cases have to be disposed of in a time-bound manner, however, the court at the same time cannot ignore the specific provisions of law which are required to be followed by adjudicating the suit. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the legal as well as the factual petition of the present matter, this court is of the view that the impugned order dated 06.01.2026 which has not dealt with and answered the issues raised by the JDR in his application under Section 47 of the CPC is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the order dated 06.01.2026 is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the learned executing court to consider the application of the JDR under Section 47 of the CPC at Annexure-2 in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks. The respective parties are directed to Page 5 of 5. cooperate with the learned trial court on an early disposal of the Section 47 application. 8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CMP application is disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer