JUDGMENT S.PANDA, J. - Petitioner in this application have challenged the order dated 12.11.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhenkanal in Execution Case No. 63 of 1998 in dismissing the execution case as the same is not maintainable before him. 2. The facts leading to the present case are as follows:- It is averred in the writ petition that the parties in the writ petition claim to be the disciples of Sri Mahima Gosain the propounder of Mahima Dharma. The Sanyasis are in two groups. One group is known as Balkaladhari and the other is Koupinidhari. There was a disputes between these two groups with regard to their right to perform seba puja in the SUNYA MANDIR where the relics of Mahima Gosain is worshiped and the right to take part in the management of the institution. Consequently two separate societies have been formed and registered. One is registered as Satya Mahima Dharma Dhama Parichalana Samiti. The said samiti is dominated by the Balkala Dharies who claim to be the true disciples of Mahima Swamy. The present petitioners represent the Samiti of Balkaladhari. The other group had been registered as Satya Alekha Mahima Dharma Koupina Dhari Samiti. The opposite parties represent the Samiti of Koupina Dharies. 3.In the year 1939-40 there was a dispute between the two groups of Sanaysi when the Koupin Dharies are said to have been forcibly encroached on a part of Sunya Mandir and raised some structures thereon. Accordingly the Balkaldhari filed Original Suit No. 62/152 of 1939-40 (HC/21/1943) before the learned District Judge of the then State of Dhenkanal for declaration of the title of the deity Mahima Gosain to the disputed site and the sheds and other structures standing thereon, for ejectment of the defendants therefrom and other structures standing thereon, for ejectment of the defendants there from and for a perpetual injunction on the defendants restraining them from constructing huts or other structures on the disputed site. The said suit was decreed on contest on 16.12.1944 in favour of the plaintiffs Sree Mahima Gosain. The defendants were also restrained from construction any hut or other structure on the Gadi compound. Judgment debtors challenging the decree preferred Civil Appeal No.1 of 1945 before the appellate Court. The said suit was decreed on contest on 16.12.1944 in favour of the plaintiffs Sree Mahima Gosain. The defendants were also restrained from construction any hut or other structure on the Gadi compound. Judgment debtors challenging the decree preferred Civil Appeal No.1 of 1945 before the appellate Court. 4.The appellate Court by order dated 5.6.1945 dismissed the appeal however, modified the decree to the extent that the defendants will not be able to construct a separate Dhunimandap and lit up a separate akhandabati in their new place of residence in the math area and the words in the ordering portion of the judgment of the trial Court “to the site where the aforesaid sheds would be removed” was deleted by the appellate Court. 5.The Balkaldhari-decree holders issued notice to the judgment debtors Koupina Dharies to remove the structures and to comply with the direction of the decree passed by the High Court of Dhenkanal State. The Koupin Dhari replied the same negative. 6.The Balkala Dharies filed Execution Case No. 63 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhenkanal for execution of the decree. The prayer made in the execution application was in two folds, i.e. for removal of the offending structures from the GADI SITE and for punishing the judgment debtors for violation of the decree of the prohibitory injunction. 7.The question before the execution Court was that if the Civil Court established after merger of the Dhenkanal State was competent to execute the decree passed by the corresponding Civil Court of the State of Dhenkanla. In other words if the Civil Judge (Sr. Divin.), Dhenkanal can be treated as the Court which passed the decree for the purpose of execution within the meaning of Section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree holders contended that after merger of the State in the province of Orissa all the powers and functions of the State Civil Court merged in the corresponding Civil Court of the province of Orissa. The decree holders further contended that the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhenkanal was competent to execute the decree. The Judgment debtors on the contrary challenged the executability of the decree in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhenkanal on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. The decree holders further contended that the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhenkanal was competent to execute the decree. The Judgment debtors on the contrary challenged the executability of the decree in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhenkanal on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhenkanal considering the contention raised by both parties by impugned order dismissed the execution case with an observation that the decree sought to be executed is neither passed by this Court nor the same is received for execution from any other Court. 8.For the discussions made hereinabove paragraphs regarding the dispute and the decree passed by the Court for permanent injunction, the trial Court decree for mandatory injunction for removal of the shed was modified by the appellate Court therefore the final decree was that the appellate Court who has restrained the defendants from construction of any hut or other structure on the Gadi compound. As the decree is binding on the defendants, the action of the defendants to erect the new sheds at the South Western corner of the third Bedha amounts to violation of the said decree for which finding no other way the decree holders have filed Execution Case No. 63 of 1998. It also reveals that at the time of merger of the State an agreement was entered into with Governor General of India wherein it was agreed that the State of Dhenkanal merged with an independent dominion known as independent India and that the Government of India Act, 1935 shall with such omissions, additions, adoptions and modification as the Governor General may by order satisfy, be applicable to the dominion of India and whereas the Government of India Act,1935, as so adopted by the Governor General provides that an Indian State may accede to the dominion of India by an instrument of accession executed by the Ruler thereof. In view of the said execution of the document and the federal Court established for the purpose of dominion shall by virtue of that instrument functions as may be vested in them by order under the Government of India Act, 1935 as in force in the dominion of India on the 15th day of August, 1947, therefore rightly the decree holders have approached the executing Court. 9.In view of the above discussions this Court sets aside the impugned order in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and directs the Court below to proceed with the execution case. Ordered accordingly.