Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. A.K.Sahoo, learned counsel files Vkalatnama on behalf of O.P.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have challenged the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the learned District Commission,Sundargarh-11,Rourkela where under it was asked not to seize the vehicle till filing of written statement. But he has filed the written version and objection. Further, he submitted that the vehicle has been seized as per the order passed by the Arbitrator before filing of the complaint case. As such, the subsequent order passed by the learned District Commission to release the vehicle itself is illegal. However, the first order was passed on 28.11.2022 and subsequently, on 13.12.2022 passed order in Execution Proceeding No. 11 of 2022 vide Annexture-5. He submits to set aside the impugned orders by allowing the revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the OP submits that there is no order passed by the Arbitrator but the O.P has seized the vehicle by violating the order passed by the learned District Commission purportedly U/S 38(8) of C.P.Act,2019. Accordingly,the inventory report does not disclose that they have seized the vehicle. In support of his submission, he filed copy of inventory report.
4. Considered the submissions of both parties. Perused the impugned orders.
5. It appears from the submission of both parties that the record already posted to 03.02.2023 for hearing on maintainability of petition filed by the OPs. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed in the execution proceeding. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission and present their respective submissions. We further direct the learned District Commission to dispose of the complaint within 30 days from today. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission on 03.02.2023 to receive further instruction from it.
6. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
