Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1264 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Biranchi Narayan Das

2016-12-21

BISWANATH RATH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This is a Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned order dated 10.2.2016 passed by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court exercising his power under Chapter XXVII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 in the Execution Proceeding No.2/2015, vide under Annexure-8. 2. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition being entertained, notice was issued to the opposite parties keeping the question of maintainability of the Civil Revision open to be taken up in the final disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. On their appearance, the opposite parties at the threshold of the matter pressed for deciding the question of maintainability of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition ahead of the decision on other issues involved. 3. Sri B.N.Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner-State, referring to the orders involving the present dispute, i.e., one passed by the High Court of Orissa dated 21.5.2009 in disposal of O.J.C.No.11342/2000 and the subsequent order being passed by the Hon’ble apex Court dated 9.1.2013 in disposal of S.L.P.(C) No.32998 of 2009, submitted that there involves two different orders and looking to the prayer made in the Execution Proceeding submitted that there remains no doubt that the Execution Proceeding confined to the direction of the Hon’ble apex Court dated 9.1.2013 in the S.L.P.(C) No.32998 of 2009 and in this view of the matter, strenuously urged that no Execution Proceeding was lying to the Registrar of the High Court following the Chapter XXVIII of High Court of Orissa Rules, 1948 instead an Execution Proceeding following Order 45 Rule 15 was lying and accordingly submitted that the Execution Proceeding so initiated cannot be deemed to be a proceeding under Chapter XXVIII of Rules of the High Court of Orissa. Under the circumstance and as the Registrar here being subordinate to the High Court exercised power not vested in him, his orders can be assailed by way of Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India for scrutiny of the High Court in its Civil Miscellaneous Petition jurisdiction side. Under the circumstance and as the Registrar here being subordinate to the High Court exercised power not vested in him, his orders can be assailed by way of Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India for scrutiny of the High Court in its Civil Miscellaneous Petition jurisdiction side. Assailing the impugned order, Sri B.N.Bhuyan, learned Additional Government appearing for the petitioner, going away from the grounds of challenge in the Revision made legal submission challenging the initiation of the execution proceeding itself and contended that looking to the prayer made in the Execution Petition No.2/2015, it appears, the execution proceeding was initiated under the provision of Chapter XXVIII Rule-1 of the Rules, 1948 read with Order XXI Rule-11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for execution of the order of the Hon’ble apex Court dated 9.1.2013 passed in S.L.P.(C) No.32998 of 2009. For the provision contained in Chapter XXVIII Rule-1 of the Rules, 1948 and the provision contained in Order 45 Rule 15 of Civil Procedure Code. Sri Bhuyan, learned Additional Government for the petitioner contended that since the Execution Proceeding involved the execution of the order of the Hon’ble apex Court dated 9.1.2013 in S.L.P.(C) No.32998 of 2009, it should have been initiated following the provision contained in Order 45 Rule 15 of C.P.C. to the court from which the appeal to the apex Court was preferred and following the provision under Order 45 Rule 15(2), such court receiving the execution proceeding was required to transmit the decree or order of the Hon’ble apex Court to the court, which passed the first decree, appeal from all such decree or order would direct for execution of the same. Finally, Sri B.N.Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate, urged that the Registrar of the High Court was taking up the Execution Proceeding without competency, here was functioning as a court subordinate to the High Court and under the circumstance, the present Revision is maintainable and hence requested this Court for interfering with the impugned order and set aside the same. To substantiate his argument, Sri Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner, relied on decisions in the case of Kunhya Mamed & others vrs. State of Kerala & another reported in 2006 SCC 359 , Satru Charl, Vijay Rama Raju vrs. Nimmaka, Jaya, Raju and others reported in 2006 (1) SCC 212 , Sri Ram Builders vrs. To substantiate his argument, Sri Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner, relied on decisions in the case of Kunhya Mamed & others vrs. State of Kerala & another reported in 2006 SCC 359 , Satru Charl, Vijay Rama Raju vrs. Nimmaka, Jaya, Raju and others reported in 2006 (1) SCC 212 , Sri Ram Builders vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 102 , Jogendra Singhji, Vijay Singhji vrs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2015) 9 SCC page-1, Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society vrs. Balbin Singh and others reported in 2015 (7) SCC 373 , Radheshyam and others vrs. V. Chabinath and others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 432, Bussa Overseas and properties (pvt.) Ltd. vrs. Union of India reported in 2016 (4) SCC 696 . 4. Sri R.K.Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite parties, though did not dispute that the Execution Proceeding is directed involving the direction of the Hon’ble apex Court and that the prayer involved therein is also in terms of direction of the Hon’ble apex Court but contended that there is ultimate merger of the direction of the Hon’ble apex Court in the order passed by the High Court of Orissa in O.J.C. No.11342/2000 and it cannot be construed that the Execution Proceeding involved the independent direction of the Hon’ble apex Court. Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the opposite parties, further submitted that even assuming that the order of the Hon’ble apex Court is put to execution following the provisions contained in Order 45 Rule 15, the Execution Proceeding was required to be filed in this Court and therefore, the Execution Proceeding has been rightly entertained by this Court. Sri Mohanty further contended that nomenclation of the Execution Proceeding is immaterial and claimed that ultimately, the intention of the party through his pleadings should be the paramount consideration. In the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by any order in the Execution, for the provision contained in Sub-Rule 7(iii) of the Chapter XXVIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948, an appeal as against this order shall lie to the Division Bench of this Court and thus, the Civil Miscellaneous proceeding under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not maintainable. Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, substantiating his argument on the question of maintainability of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India relied on decision in the case of S. Sesagiri Rao (petitioner) reported in AIR 1966 Andhra Pradesh 167, Jhaman Karan Singh Dadalani vrs. Ramallal Maniklal Kantabala reported in AIR 1975 Bombay 182, Benet Coalman & Co. Ltd. & others vrs. J.B.Patnaik and another reported in Vol.66 (1988) CLT 302. 5. Now coming back to the case at hand, it appears that the present opposite parties filed a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No.11342/2000 in the High Court of Orissa seeking a command against the opposite parties therein and the present petitioner to re-transfer and convey the lands belonging to the petitioners and/or allot land of equivalent area in exchange of land taken from the petitioners and utilizes for town planning scheme-II, Nayapalli (North) which stands abandoned/dropped. This writ petition was heard finally and disposed of with the following direction :- “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this writ petition and direct the opposite party no.1 to allot to the petitioner equivalent extent of land (Ac.1.837 dec.) in exchange having the similar potential value which they have counted within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order and the other opposite parties are directed to execute the order to be passed by opposite party no.1 in compliance of this order.” 6. The State Government, the present petitioner being aggrieved by the direction of the High Court, as indicated herein above, filed S.L.P.(C) No.32998/2009, which matter upon hearing both the sides though was dismissed for having no valid and legal ground for interference by order dated 9.1.2013 but with the direction as follows :- “Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner State, respondents and perused the relevant material. We do not find any valid and legal ground for interference. The special leave petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted three months’ time to comply with the order of the High Court. In case if the State finds no suitable land, as suggested by the High Court, they are permitted to pay the market value prevailing as on date to the parties concerned.” 7. The special leave petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted three months’ time to comply with the order of the High Court. In case if the State finds no suitable land, as suggested by the High Court, they are permitted to pay the market value prevailing as on date to the parties concerned.” 7. Consequent upon dismissal of the S.L.P. and as the order of the Hon’ble apex Court contained a positive direction in addition to the direction contained in the disposal of the writ petition by the High court of Orissa, the present opposite parties filed CONTEMPT. PET.(C) No.202/2013 in the Hon’ble apex Court. Leaving apart the developments taken therein remaining unnecessary for the purpose of the present case, it is worth mentioning here that Hon’ble apex Court while dropping the Contempt Petition by order dated 28.1.2015 passed the following direction :- “Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties for a considerable length of time, on different dates of hearing, we are of the view, that it is not possible to hold the respondent guilty of deliberate and willful disobedience of any Court order. We accordingly, drop contempt proceedings initiated against the respondent, and discharge the notice issued to the respondent on 2.7.2013. Despite the observations recorded herein above, it shall be open to the respondents (in the main petition), to execute the order passed in their favour, in accordance with law. The contempt petition is disposed of in the above terms.” Answering the submission made by Sri Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel that for the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court merged in the order of the High Court, this Court observes that it is rather the merger of the High Court order in the order of Hon’ble Apex Court and not the vice versa. In the case of CIT v. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co, AIR 1958 SC 868 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that as a result of the confirmation or affirmance of the decision of the tribunal by the appellate authority the original decision merges in the appellate decision and it is the appellate decision alone which subsists and is operative and capable of enforcement. Similarly, in the case of State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Similarly, in the case of State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd., the Hon’ble apex Court again held that the doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of rigid and universal application and it cannot be said that wherever there are two orders, one by the inferior authority and the other by a superior authority, passed in an appeal or revision there is a fusion or merger of two orders irrespective of the subject-matter of the appellate or revisional order. This submission of Sri Mohanty found to be contrary to the settled position of law. 8. It appears, following the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court, the opposite parties, i.e., the decree holders preferred the Execution Petition No.2/2015 appears to be a petition under Chapter XXVIII of High Court of Orissa Rules, 1948 in the High Court of Orissa seeking the following relief :- “In the above facts and circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue process on the judgment debtor fixing the time for the payment of Rs.32,49,75,000/-(rupees thirty two crores forty nine lacs seventy five thousand only) with future interest @ 12% to the decree holders. Failing the compliance of the same by the judgment debtor within time fixed, Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to realize the amount in accordance with the provision of Order XXI Rule-11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Chapter-XXVII Rule-1 of the High Court of Orissa, 1948, i.e., at the 1st instance by realizing the above said amount by attachment and sale of the immovable properties and attachment of Bank A/c as stated above. And may be pleased to pass any other order/orders as may be deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness the decree holder as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 9. The Execution Petition was registered as E.P. No.2/2015 and the Registrar of this Court while exercising his power under Chapter XXVIII of High Court of Orissa Rules, 1948 and vide his order dated 10.2.2016 passed the following :- “This order arises out of an application under Chapter XXVIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 in terms Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and several affidavits exchanged between the parties. Those affidavits have hardly any significance before the Executing Court, which does not possess any jurisdiction except for the purpose of execution, discharge and satisfaction of the order sought to be executed. Along with the application for execution, the Decree Holders have filed several documents, for execution of the Order dated 21.5.2009 passed in OJC No.11342 of 2000, which stood modified by the Order dated 9.1.2013 passed in SLP (Civil) No.32998 of 2013. In fact the Hon’ble apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition at the instance of the Judgment Debtors, way back in 2013 was pleased to observe that if State finds no suitable land as suggested by the High Court, they are permitted to pay the market value prevailing as on date to the parties concerned and granted three months time for compliance of the Order of High Court. More than three months time for compliance of the Order of High Court. More than three years have passed in the meantime. It is found that in OJC No.11342 of 2000, the Hon’ble Court directed the opposite party No.1 (Jdr), to allot equivalent extent of land (Ac.1.837 situated in Mouza Jayadev Vihar and Mouza Sahid Nagar at Bhubaneswar), in exchange, having similar potential value. As regards money value, the Decree holders have stated that the Bench mark value of those plots is Rs.12 Crore per acre. Regard being had to the question of determination of similar potential value, by order dated 11.3.2014, the Apex Court appointed an Arbitrator to determine the ‘market value prevailing as on date’, on the basis of which the Report was submitted indicating the market value. Finally, when the Dhrs approached in Contempt Petition No.202 of 2013, by order dated 28.1.2015, it was observed by the Apex Court that the respondents in the main petition may execute the order in their favour. There is no point in harbouring in between ‘potential value’ and ‘market value’ since the amount is to be paid in exchange of the land value as on date. Dhrs have urged that they are entitled to Rs.25,71,80,000/-, calculated @ Rs.14 Crore per acre besides interest @ 12% per annum. Perused the Bench mark valuation in respect of different plots in Mouza : Jaydev Vihar and Shampur (the proposed alternative site) submitted by Dhrs along with memo dated 2.12.2015, which obviously was prepared for collection of stamp duty. Dhrs have urged that they are entitled to Rs.25,71,80,000/-, calculated @ Rs.14 Crore per acre besides interest @ 12% per annum. Perused the Bench mark valuation in respect of different plots in Mouza : Jaydev Vihar and Shampur (the proposed alternative site) submitted by Dhrs along with memo dated 2.12.2015, which obviously was prepared for collection of stamp duty. Market Value may be little more or less than the Bench mark Value. It is submitted that the Report of the Arbitrator submitted before the Apex Court, having not been set aside holds good for recovery of the amount at such rate. But then, the Jdrs. disputed that there is no material to indicate that such report was accepted. A moot question arises now that such report partakers the character of an Award inasmuch as the Apex Court appointed the Arbitrator for such purpose. Value has been determined accordingly, Jdrs have failed to point out that the Award is not enforceable. Parties have exchanged affidavits at random and it has been contended by the Jdrs, in their affidavit dated 9.2.2016 that this Court should direct the Dhrs to accept the alternative site at Shampur. This Court has no jurisdiction for passing that kind of direction as indicated in the said affidavit. On the other hand, the Jdrs are directed to deposit that amount claimed by the Dhrs, by 24.2.2016, failing which Dhrs may take steps for attachment. Put up on 24.2.2016 for further orders.” 10. Before proceeding to decide the question involved herein, it would be proper to take note of the provisions of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 as well as the Civil Procedure Code relevant and as referred to by both the sides, which are reflected as herein below :- “CHAPTER XXVIII Rules for Execution of Decrees. Rules for the execution of decrees and executable orders passed by the High Court in exercise of the original jurisdiction including cases decided under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, the Orissa Sales Tax Act and other taxing statutes and the contempt cases. 1. All applications for execution shall be presented before the Registrar. 1. All applications for execution shall be presented before the Registrar. Such applications shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant and shall include, as far as practicable, the particulars mentioned in Rule 11(2) of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. xxx xxx xxx 7. (i) If such payment is not made within the time fixed, the Registrar shall proceed to realize the amount in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and the said provisions shall apply mutatis mutandis to the applications filed under this chapter : Provided that, whenever possible, the Registrar shall in the first instance, proceed to realize the amount by arrest and detention in the Civil prison, of the judgment debtor as provided in Rules 37, 38, 39 and 40 of Order XXI of the Code. (ii) For the purpose of such execution, the Registrar shall be deemed to be the Court which passed the decree or order, as the case may be. (iii) An appeal shall lie to a Division Bench of the Court against an order of the Registrar passed under sub-Rule(3) of rule 40 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other order which under the law is appealable.” Order 45 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 15. Procedure to enforce orders of the Supreme Court.- (1) Whoever desires to obtain execution of any decree or order] of the Supreme Court shall apply by petition, accompanied by a certified copy of the decree passed or order made in appeal and sought to be executed, to the court from which the appeal to the Supreme Court was preferred. (2) Such court shall transmit the decree or order of the Supreme Court to the Court which passed the first decree appealed from, or to such other court as the Supreme Court by such decree or order may direct and shall (upon the application of either party) give such directions as may be required for the execution of the same; and the Court to which the said decree or order is so transmitted shall execute it accordingly, in the manner and according to the provisions applicable to the execution of its original decrees. (Sub-Rule (3) omitted) (4) Unless the Supreme Court otherwise directs, no decree or order of that court shall be inoperative on the ground that no notice has been served on or given to the legal representative of any deceased opposite party of deceased respondent in a case, where such opposite party or respondent did not appear either at the hearing in the court whose decree was complained of or at any proceedings subsequent to the decree of that court, but such order shall have the same force and effect as if it had been made before the death took place.” Order 45 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure 16. Appeal from order relating to execution – The orders made by the Court which executes the (decree or order) of (the Supreme Court) relating to such execution, shall be appealable in the same manner and subject to the same rules as the orders of such Court relating to the execution to its own decrees. 11. Reading of the provisions contained in Chapter XXVIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 makes way for execution of decrees in shape of judgment or orders passed by the High Court in exercise of the original jurisdiction including the cases decided under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India or under some other provisions, as mentioned therein and in the case of execution of orders in exercise of power under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the applications for execution shall have to be presented before the Registrar in terms of Rule 11(2) of Order 21 of C.P.C. and following the provision contained in Rule 7 of Chapter XXVIII unless the payment involved is made within the time fixed, the Registrar is required to proceed to realize the amount in accordance with the provision of the Order 21 of C.P.C. and following Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7 for the purpose of execution, the Registrar taking up the execution shall be deemed to be the Court, which passed the decree or order as the case may be and any order of the Registrar is appealable to a Division Bench of the same Court. 12. Now following the provisions contained in Order 45 Rule 15, this is a mechanism for enforcing the orders of the Hon’ble apex Court by way of execution. 12. Now following the provisions contained in Order 45 Rule 15, this is a mechanism for enforcing the orders of the Hon’ble apex Court by way of execution. Following this procedure, an application for execution of the Hon’ble apex Court’s orders is required to be made to the Court, from which the appeal to the Hon’ble apex Court was preferred and following Sub-Clause (2) therein upon the direction of the Court and transmission of the record to the Court, which passed the first decree appealed or to such other Court as the Hon’ble apex Court may direct and the Court, to which the said decree or order is so transmitted shall execute it accordingly. 13. Now coming back to the facts involved in the case and the directions therein, more particularly, looking to the prayer made in the Execution Petition, it appears, the opposite parties sought for execution of the direction contained in the order dated 9.1.2013 passed in S.L.P.(C) No.32998/2009. Hon’ble Supreme Court though dismissed the S.L.P. but by order dated 9.1.2013 passed the following :- “Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner State, respondents and perused the relevant material. We do not find any valid and legal ground for interference. The special leave petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted three months’ time to comply with the order of the High Court. In case if the State finds no suitable land, as suggested by the High Court, they are permitted to pay the market value prevailing as on date to the parties concerned.” Reading of this order, it appears, Hon’ble apex Court going ahead of the final direction of the High Court specifically, directed the State Government in the event it is unable to find out any suitable land, it is permitted to pay market value as on date of the order to the parties concerned. This direction is a positive direction and available for execution and there is no dispute, thus, that order of the Hon’ble apex Court is put to execution. Since the order of the Hon’ble apex Court was sought to be executed, this Court finds, there was no question of application of the provision of the Chapter XXVIII of the Rules of the Orissa High Court, 1948 in the present case. It is, on the other hand, the provision contained in Order 45 Rule 15 of C.P.C. has a direct application. It is, on the other hand, the provision contained in Order 45 Rule 15 of C.P.C. has a direct application. Assuming that nomenclature in the body of the Execution Petition is immaterial for the settled position of law and since the Execution Petition is filed in the High Court from which the appeal was preferred to Hon’ble apex Court can be treated as an application under Order 45 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is now to be seen, if the Registrar is competent to deal with such Execution Petition? Under the admitted circumstance specifically for the admission of the opposite parties that the Execution Petition is directed involving the direction of Hon’ble apex Court dated 9.1.2013 being permitted by order of the Hon’ble apex Court in the contempt proceeding in its order dated 28.1.2015, the execution, if any, was only maintainable under Order 45 Rule 15 of C.P.C. Reading of the provision at Order 45 Rule 15 of C.P.C., it makes clear that the Execution Petition is not only to be made to High Court, from which the appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court was preferred and such Court which for all purpose in the case at hand here will be this High Court. In such event, this Court was required to transmit the decree or order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the Court which passed the decree appealed from and the Court to which the record is transmitted should have executed it accordingly in the manner and according to the provision applicable to the execution of its original decrees/orders. In the given circumstance, the execution application since maintainable applying provision at Order 45 Rule 15 is required to be dealt by the High Court not by the Registrar and the Registrar has absolutely no power to sit over it. This Court finds, the Registrar exercising power involving the present execution proceeding was without jurisdiction. 14. In the given circumstance, the execution application since maintainable applying provision at Order 45 Rule 15 is required to be dealt by the High Court not by the Registrar and the Registrar has absolutely no power to sit over it. This Court finds, the Registrar exercising power involving the present execution proceeding was without jurisdiction. 14. Considering the challenge of the opposite parties with regard to maintainability of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition and also framed by this Court at the admission of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition, this Court finds, under the facts scenario of the case, the Registrar taking up the Execution Proceeding, since involved execution of the direction of the Hon’ble apex Court, was incompetent to exercise its power under Order 45 Rule 15 of C.P.C. and therefore, its action being an action of a Court subordinate to the High Court is coming well within the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as such this Court finds, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India where the High Court exercises its power of superintendence over the subordinate courts, is very much maintainable. 15. Deciding the scope of High Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of Constitution of India the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & another vrs. Chhabi Nath & others reported in (2015) 5 S.C.C.-423, has held in paragraph-25 as follows:- “25. It is true that this Court has laid down that technicalities associated with the prerogative writs in England have no role to play under our constitutional scheme. There is no parallel system of King’s Court in India and of all other courts having limited jurisdiction subject to supervision of King’s Court. Courts are set up under the Constitution or the laws. All courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of Tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of Tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Control of working of subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers or power of superintendence under Article 227. Orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or Tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts. While appellate or revisional jurisdiction is regulated by statutes, power of superintendence under Article 227 is constitutional. The expression “inferior court” is not referable to judicial courts, as rightly observed in the referring order in paras 26 and 27 quoted above. 16. Looking to the dispute herein as decision of the Hon’ble Apex court is under execution, this Court finds the decision (Supra) has a direct bearing in the present case and the Civil Miscellaneous petition, since directed against the order of the Registrar of the High Court being subordinate to this Court the Civil Miscellaneous petition is maintainable. 17. Under the circumstance and for the reason assigned in paragraph-14 herein, this Court finds the execution petition No.2/2015 in the present form is maintainable under Order 45 Rule 15 of C.P.C. forgetting the nomenclation be treated as a proceeding under Order 45 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the Registrar exercising his power under Chapter XXVIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa is incompetent and as such, all orders passed by the Registrar of High Court of Orissa become void and inoperative. Thus, while holding that the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India maintainable, this Court finds, all the orders passed by the Registrar are without competency and as such, this Court sets aside all the orders passed by the Registrar of High Court of Orissa involving E.P.No.2/2015 and directs the Registry to place the Execution Proceeding before the assigned Bench taking the permission of the Bench for its proceeding in accordance with law. Dealing with the deposit made by the State on the orders in the execution side, this Court directs the deposit made here will be treated as a deposit involving the Execution Case and release of the same shall be dependent on the orders to be passed in the Execution Proceeding by the Court of competency. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. No cost.