Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.165 of 2026 Abhimanyu Sahu ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Prasanta Kumar Satapathy -versus- Ajay Kumar Sahu and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 30.01.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the defendant-Appellant in RFA No.192 of 2025, pending before the learned District Judge, Bhadrak, has approached this Court challenging order dated 16.12.2025 passed in I.A. No.73 of 2025 arising out of the above-noted I.A. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that being aggrieved by the order passed by the Executive Court in an Page 2 of 3. execution proceeding dated 29.10.2025, the Petitioner has approached the learned Appellate Court by filing an appeal. Along with the appeal the Petitioner has also filed an application under Order-39, Rule-1 & 2 seeking an interim injunction. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 16.12.2025 has also issued notice. However, the matter of interim injunction has not been taken up. He further submitted that in the meantime the office of the learned District Judge, Bhadrak is lying vacant as the previous presiding officer has been transferred in the meantime. Due to the aforesaid difficulty, the matter has not been taken up. As a result of which, the Petitioner is seriously prejudiced. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that taking advantage of the situation, the plaintiff is continuing with the construction activities. He further contended that in the event the plaintiff is permitted to continue with the construction activities, the same is likely to cause prejudice to the Petitioner-defendant. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, further on a careful examination of the document annexed to the application as well as the impugned order dated 16.12.2025, this Court observes that in the I.A. the learned Appellate Court has already issued notice to the Opposite Parties. As alleged by the Petitioner the office of the District Judge, Bhadrak is lying vacant, however, the same will not stand as roadblock in the way of the Petitioner’s appeal being heard expeditiously. In view of the aforesaid position, the present application is being disposed of by directing the District Judge-In-Charge, or any ADJ who has been assigned the matter, to take up the I.A. filed in first appeal and make Page 3 of 3. every endeavor to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, by providing a fair opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the CMP application stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout