Orissa High Court: In the present revision petition, the petitioner challenged an order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur, which had dropped the execution proceedings arising from a money decree due to procedural defects in the execution application. The petitioner argued that the Trial Court failed to provide him an opportunity to rectify those technical shortcomings and, therefore, sought to have the order set aside.
A Single Judge Bench of Ananda Chandra Behera, J., observed that the doctrine of res judicata was not applicable to execution proceedings. Thus, the Court while allowing the petition and setting aside the order, held that the Trial Court had passed the order without giving the petitioner an opportunity to supply the required particulars of the properties indicated in the execution application, in compliance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 11(2) and Appendix (E) No. 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’). In view of this procedural lapse, the Court held that the order could not be sustained in law.
Background:
The case arose from execution proceedings that were initiated pursuant to a decree passed in a money suit. The petitioner, acting as the Decree Holder, filed a civil revision under Section 115 CPC, challenging the order dated 27-09-2024 issued by the Civil Judge (Senior Division). By the said order, the Trial Court dropped the execution proceedings on the ground that the execution petition was not executable.
The petitioner failed to specify the exact amount to be recovered from the Judgment Debtors, did not furnish valuation details of two Government vehicles, and omitted the valuation of immovable properties listed in the schedule. These deficiencies, coupled with other technical shortcomings, formed the basis for the Trial Court’s decision to terminate the execution process.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that it was a fundamental principle in civil law that the doctrine of res judicata was not applicable to execution proceedings. The Court emphasised that when an order was passed to drop execution proceedings on technical grounds, the Judgment Debtor was not precluded under law from filing a fresh application for execution, provided correct particulars were furnished to make the execution petition executable.
The Court further noted that execution proceedings were governed by Order 21 CPC, which contained 106 rules and constituted a self-contained and independent framework. Therefore, the Decree Holder was not debarred from obtaining the fruits of the decree merely due to technical defects in the execution application, such as non-furnishing of particulars of movable and immovable properties. As per law, the Court was required to provide an opportunity to the Decree Holder to supply the necessary particulars in order to rectify such defects.
Importantly, the Court noted that the Trial Court passed the order without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to supply the required particulars of the properties indicated in the execution application, in compliance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 11(2) and Appendix (E) No. 6 CPC. In view of the procedural lapse, the Court held that the order could not be sustained in law. Consequently, the Court found no justification under law to disallow the revision filed by the petitioner.
The Court, therefore, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 27-09-2024. The Execution Case was remitted back to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), with a direction to provide the petitioner an opportunity to furnish the correct particulars relating to the mode of execution in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 11(2) and Appendix E No.6 CPC.
Furthermore, the Court directed both parties to appear before the Trial Court on 22-10-2025 to receive further directions regarding the continuation of the execution proceedings.
[Santosh Patra v. State of Orissa, CRP No. 50 of 2024, decided on 09-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Budhiram Das, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel