JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - In this writ petition, challenge has been made by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. to the order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) 1st Court, Cuttack in Execution Case No. 94 of 2001 rejecting the petition filed by the decree holder-opposite party to stay the further proceedings of Execution Case No. 94 of 2001. 2. The factual backdrop of the case is as follows; Plaintiff is opposite party, National Insurance Company Ltd. is Defendant No. 1 and Orissa State Financial Corporation is the proforma Defendant No. 2. Opposite party, as Plaintiff, filed Money Suit No. 151 of 1984 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court, Cuttack with a prayer to decree Rs. 90,000/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 15%% per annum on the allegation that he is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. OSO-818 which was purchased with the finance given by the OSFC. The truck was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. for the period from 30.6.79 to 29.6.80. On 19.6.1980, the right side of the truck was stuck-up to the sand as a result of which the vehicle could not be removed from the said sand at the working place of Rengali Dam Project. Thereafter, the vehicle was washed out by flood water and it was not traced out. An F.I.R. was lodged at Rengali Police Station. A claim application was filed thereafter on 24.6.1980 before the Insurance Company claiming compensation as the damage occurred during subsistence of the insurance policy. After inspection conducted by the Surveyor, the claim of the opposite party was rejected. Being aggrieved, the claimant filed the suit. The Insurance Company after receiving notice appeared in the suit and filed its written statement traversing the claim of the Plaintiff. The said suit was dismissed for default of the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the same was restored by the appellate authority and in the process, four years passed. After restoration, the Insurance Company did not contest the suit and vide Judgment dated 29.3.2001 the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack passed an ex parte decree against he Insurance Company. The trial Court directed that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/-along with 12% interest. After restoration, the Insurance Company did not contest the suit and vide Judgment dated 29.3.2001 the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack passed an ex parte decree against he Insurance Company. The trial Court directed that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/-along with 12% interest. Thereafter, Plaintiff-opposite party filed the execution case which was registered as Execution Case No. 94 of 2001 and executed the decree in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,86,847.25 ps. (principal along with interest). The Insurance Company after receiving notice appeared in the said execution case on 13.11.2003. Thereafter, the Insurance Company filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex parte decree passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack which was registered as-CMA No. 11 of 2007 arising out of Money Suit No. 151 of 1984. The Insurance Company also filed an application before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack to stay further proceeding of the execution case till disposal of the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC. The decree holder filed an objection to the said application stating that the petition was liable to be rejected as the Insurance Company had received notice, appeared in the Execution Case on 13.11.2003 and filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC in the year 2007 and therefore, they did not take appropriate steps before the competent Court to set aside the ex parte decree. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack rejected the application of the Insurance Company on the ground that by mere filing of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the executing Court cannot stay the further proceeding of the execution case and the decree holder will be harassed if the suit will restore and proceed before the trial Court as it will take a long time. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Insurance Company submitted that the executing Court and the Court which passed the ex parte decree are not one Court. Underthe above circumstances, the Petitioner filed two separate applications before the two different Courts. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Insurance Company submitted that the executing Court and the Court which passed the ex parte decree are not one Court. Underthe above circumstances, the Petitioner filed two separate applications before the two different Courts. At the relevant time since the Court below which had passed the ex parte decree was not functioning, the Petitioner could not be able to move before the trial Court to stay the further proceeding of the execution case. He submitted that since the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC was filed to set aside the ex parte decree against the Defendants, the same should have been considered liberally and the narrow and technical approach should not have been taken in such matter. He further submitted that the prejudiced party may be compensated by awarding cost in case the decree will be set aside. In support of his contention, he has cited a decision of the apex Court in the case of G.P. Srivastava Vs. Shri R.K. Raizada and Others, . 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party relying on an unreported decision of the Court in W.P. (C) No. 5123 of 2007 disposed of on 11.5.2007 Konchada Prasad Rao Subudhi v. Smt. Nimana Ammayi and Ors. submitted that this Court did not incline to interfere with the order passed by the executing Court in rejecting the application for stay with an observation that the aggrieved party may approach the trial Court where an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC was pending to stay the further proceeding of the execution case. 5. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, since the trial Court where an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC was filed is not functioning and the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack which is the principal Civil Court is functioning, in the interest of justice this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directs the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack to take up the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC pending on the file of learned First Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack to consider and dispose of the same on its own merit without influenced by any observation, made in his earlier order passed in Execution Case No. 94 of 2001. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.