SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(AP) 118

A.SAMBASIVA RAO
Mohd. Surhanuddin – Appellant
Versus
Savitri Bai – Respondent


( 1 ) THE question I have to answer in these two revision petitions is whether the executing Court is bound to undo the acts and orders it has done and passed after the appellate Court has stayed the execution.

( 2 ) THE following circumstances are material for consideration of this question. In O. S. No. 49 of 1969 in the district Munsiff s Court, Bhainsa, there was a decree for possession passed against the present petitioner. On his application, the trial Court stayed the execution of the decree under Order 41 rule 5 (2), Civil Procedure Code, till 16th of june, 1972 to enable him to approach the appellate Court for appropriate stay orders. Accordingly the petitioner preferred A. S. No. 12 of 1972 to the District court, Adilabad, and obtained orders of stay in I. A. No. 465 of 1972 on 16th june, 1972. Since the stay was granted by the Court of first instance only till 16th June, 1972 the matter was posted before that Court for execution. On that day, expecting orders of stay from the appellate Court, the Bhainsa Court adjourned the matter to 17th June, 1972 that day, however, no formal order was received from the appellate Court, but the Advocate for the petitioner filed an affi









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top