The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 25-Nov-2025 18:21:18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.190 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Mahadev Sahu …. Petitioner -versus- Rajpal Singh and Another … Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Jatindra Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Laxman Pradhan, counsel for Opposite Parties CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 19th November, 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. J.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. L. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. 2. Present CMP is directed against order dated 22nd October, 2024 passed in I.A. No.02 of 2024 (arising out of Execution Proceeding No.02 of 2023) by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Phulbani, wherein the prayer of the present petitioner questioning the capacity of CMP No.190 of 2025 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 25-Nov-2025 18:21:18 execution petitioners as legal representatives of the original plaintiff, was rejected. 3. Present petitioner was the defendant in Title Suit No.15 of 1987 which was decreed in favour of the original plaintiff namely, Jasobanta Singh. The decree was in respect of declaration of right, title, interest and possession of the original plaintiff over the suit schedule properties and for recovery of possession. Present petitioner being the defendant having lost the suit filed 1st appeal and there also he lost. He then preferred second appeal being S.A. No.304 of 1997 before this court which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 31st August, 2023. During pendency of the second appeal before this court original plaintiff Jasobanta Singh died in the year 2004 and he was then substituted with present opposite parties 1 and 2 as per order dated 21st March, 2023 passed in I.A. No.37 of 2023 (arising out of SA No.304 of 1997). 4. After disposal of the second appeal the substituted LRs of the original plaintiff filed the execution proceeding No.2 of 2023 against present petitioner who is the JDr. Present petitioner being the JDr filed a petition under Section 47 of the C.P.C. raising question on the capacity of the substituted DHr, who filed the execution case, as the CMP No.190 of 2025 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 25-Nov-2025 18:21:18 LRs of original plaintiff. While adjudicating the same, the executing court vide order dated 22nd October, 2024 (impugned in present CMP) rejected the petition of the JDr on the ground that since present execution petitioners were substituted in the second appeal No.304 of 1997 before the High Court, where the defendant being the appellant without raising any objection contested the appeal with present execution petitioners as the respondents in the second appeal, no merit is there in such contention of the JDr to deny the status of execution petitioners as the LRs of original plaintiff. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits on behalf of the JDr that the substitution of present opposite parties as the LRs of the original plaintiff in second appeal No.304 of 1997 was not at the behest of present petitioner, but they themselves filed I.A. No.37 of 2023 being the respondents in the second appeal which was allowed by the court. He therefore contends that the status of present execution petitioners as LRs of the original DHRs was never accepted by the JDr and the dispute is open to be adjudicated by the competent court. Mr. Mohapatra further submits that in the meantime the execution petitioners (present opposite parties) have filed CS No.34 of 2023 (37/2023) before the Senior Civil Judge, CMP No.190 of 2025 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 25-Nov-2025 18:21:18 Phulbani praying to declare them as the only legal representatives of late Jasobanta Singh (original plaintiff). Therefore, the status of present opposite parties as the LRs of original plaintiff to initiate the execution proceeding is not maintainable. 6. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that in the meantime the Tahasildar, Kandhamal on 27th October, 2025 has granted the legal heir certificate in favour of present petitioners as the sons of late Jasobanta Singh. Therefore no more dispute remains on the subject whether present petitioners are the LRs of the original plaintiff to maintain the execution proceeding. 7. As seen from the facts narrated above it is admitted that second appeal No.304 of 1997 was contested between Mahadev Sahu (original defendant) and the execution petitioners as the LRs of the original plaintiff, and the judgment was delivered vide order dated 31st August, 2023 dismissing the second appeal. Said order dated 31st August, 2023 of this court is not challenged before the higher court and attained its finality. The defendant having the knowledge that present execution petitioners are contesting the appeal with the status as LRs of the original plaintiff, admits to such status of execution petitioners for contesting the second appeal, the objection raised at CMP No.190 of 2025 Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 25-Nov-2025 18:21:18 this stage in the execution proceeding through a petition filed under Section 47 of the C.P.C. to dispute their status as such is definitely not acceptable. 8. At the same time it is seen that despite the judgment dated 31st August, 2023 passed in SA No.304 of 1997 staring at the parties including the execution petitioners, they filed Civil Suit No.34/2023 (37/2023) praying to declare them as the only legal representatives of late Jasobanta Singh (original plaintiff). Therefore it is the execution petitioners who attempted to declare them as the LRs of the original plaintiff, might be on the notion to end of all such dispute regarding their status as such, they cannot take benefit of their status to be undisputed as on date as the legal representatives of the original plaintiff to maintain the execution proceeding. 9. It is true that the Executing Court is not incompetent to decide the question of status of legal representative of the original DHR if such objection is raised and it is also true that if the execution petitioners have tried to suppress any fact which would disentitle them as the LRs of original DHR, they would not be entitled to maintain the execution proceeding in the capacity of DHR. In such circumstances as stated above since the suit itself was filed by the CMP No.190 of 2025 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 25-Nov-2025 18:21:18 execution petitioners to declare them as the only LRs of the original plaintiff, it would be appropriate to wait till the decision of the suit for deciding the objection of the JDR. Thus in the result, since CS No.34/2023 (37/2023) is admittedly pending as on date, learned executing court is directed to wait till disposal of said suit deciding status of the execution petitioners as the LRs of the original plaintiff. In the event said suit is disposed of otherwise without merit, the executing court may proceed in accordance with law based on the available materials.
Decision
10. The CMP is disposed of accordingly. M.K. Panda/P.A ( B.P. Routray) Judge CMP No.190 of 2025 Page 6 of 6