JAYADEV PANDA @ TRIPATHY Vs. DILLIP KUMAR PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter involves a challenge to the orders dated 10.8.2017 and 11.8.2017 passed involving Annexure-7 whereby the trial court rejecting the application of the petitioner filed for time to file objection, accepting the affidavit filed by the opposite party directed to issue the fresh writ to the Amin Commissioner to cause delivery of possession of the writ schedule property.

(2.) Bringing to the notice of this Court, the identification of schedule property appearing at different stages of the proceeding, firstly, disclosure of the identification in the plaint, secondly, a disclosure of the identification in the decree, thirdly, a disclosure in the identification in the execution proceeding, fourthly, disclosure of identification, vide Annexure-B and application filed by the opposite party during pendency of the execution proceeding and fifthly, an affidavit filed by the opposite party, the Dhr filed the following direction of the executing court dated 4.8.2017, Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that for filing of an affidavit giving further disclosure of identification of the disputed property prima facie finding variance in the identification of the properties mentioned in the plaint and decree as well as in the execution petition, the Jdr. filed an application seeking time to file objection to the disclosure of the property by way of affidavit filed by the Dhr. This matter was taken up on 8.8.2017, on which date the execution proceeding was taken up and the Dhr. filed an affidavit with scheduled property, the case was next posted to 10.8.2017. On the said date, it appears, the Jdr. filed a time petition to file objection for the discrepancy in the identification of the property. On 10.8.2017 the executing court while rejecting the time petition seeking time to file objection by the Jdr. accepted the affidavit at the instance of the O.P.-Dhr. and directed for issue of fresh writ involving the property indicated in the affidavit.

(3.) Sri Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite party objecting to the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that for filing of the affidavit on disclosure of the identification of the property on asking of the court and since the court found infirmity in the description of the property by way of affidavit, it appears, there is no illegality in rejecting the application asking time for filing objection filed by the Dhr. and issuing necessary direction therein.