Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.2032 of 2025 Sanjay Sahoo ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Byomokesh Sahoo -versus- Rourkela Municipality, Sundargarh & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 28.01.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rourkela in Execution Proceeding No.09 of 2003. 3. The present CMP application has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court pleased to admit the case by issue notice to the opposite parties and after hearing from the parties pleased to set aside the order dated 24.04.2025 passed in Execution Case No.9 of 2003 and further be pleased to restore the Execution Case No.9 of 2003 in the interest of justice; And pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as this Page 2 of 3. Hon'ble deem fit and proper.” 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner is the decree holder and, accordingly, he had filed an execution proceeding bearing Execution Case No.09 of 2003 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rourkela. He further contended that although the Petitioner was participated in the execution proceeding, however, the case was posted to 24.04.2025. On the date to which the case was posted although the JDR appeared and filed his hazira, however, none represented the decree holder. Accordingly, the learned trial court presumed that the decree holder-execution petitioner has no interest in the execution proceeding. Accordingly, the execution case was dropped due to non-prosecution. 4. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to provision contained in Order 21 Rule 106 CPC. By referring to the aforesaid provision, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there exists a provision in Order 21 with regard to setting aside of ex-parte order against the applicant. Since the order dated 24.04.2025 has been passed ex-parte without hearing the applicant-decree holder, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be granted liberty to move an application under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC for setting aside of such ex-parte order. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, further keeping in view the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 106 CPC, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present CMP application. Accordingly, the present CMP application is being disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner Page 3 of 3. to approach the learned Executing Court by filing an application under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC with an application for condonation of delay, if any, within three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the learned trial court shall consider such application and, after providing an opportunity to the parties, shall dispose of such application in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CMP application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer