An executing court is bound to obey a stay order passed by an appellate court as soon as it gains knowledge of it. Any acts or orders passed by the executing court after gaining knowledge of the stay order are nullities.

( 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 affidavit that the appellate Court had" granted stay. All the same, since noformal orders were received the Court of first instance vacated the stay on 17th june, 1972. C. R. P. No. 1720 of 1972 is against this order vacating the stay.

( 3 ) ON 18th June, 1972, the present respondent decree-holder in O. S. No. 49 of 1969 obtained possession of the property and also withdrew the costs. She claims to have leased out the property to a third person on that day itself. The court of first instance received a telegram from the appellate Court at 6. p. M. on. 19th June, 1972 and a formal general order on 21st June, 1972 intimating it about the stay granted on 16th June, 1972. Thereupon the present petitioner filed on 26th June, 1972. E. A. No. 22 of 1972 to restore possession from the respondent and to direct her to re-deposit the costs. These applications were opposed by the respondent saying that she had already given the land on lease on 18th june, 1972 to a third party and it would cause grave, inconvenience if possession was then disturbed. Accepting this contention, the executing Court dismissed on 20th of July, 1972, E. A. No. 22 of 1972, C. R. P. No. 1719 of 1972 is against this order.

( 4 ) SRI Subbarayadu, contends that stay granted by a Court takes effect from the time the order is passed; in any case, it would certainly be enforceable from the time it was brought to the notice of the executing Court that stay had been granted. Since the Advocate through an affidavit brought the fact of the appellate court granting stay to the notice of the executing Court on 17th June, 1972 the proceedings taken thereafter by that, court contrary to the stay are null and void and have no legal effect. So, its order to vacate the stay on 17th June, 1972 and its dismissal of E. A. No. 22 of 1972 are bad in law.

( 5 ) THERE is no doubt about the legal position. In the case of stay order by the appellate Court, the Court of first instance is bound to obey it as soon as it gets notice of the order. Knowledge of the order is necessary. This knowledge can be obtained either by receiving an order directly from the appellate court or through one of the parties to the proceedings supported by an affidavit or in any other way. I take support to the above observations from the decision of the Supreme Court in Mulraj v, murti Raghunathji, cited before me by sri B. V. Subbarayadu, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

( 6 ) SRI Jagannatha Sastri for the respondent, however, points out that in the present case the affidavit was not that of the party but only that of his advocate and he was not the Advocate who had appeared before the District Court and was present when that order was passed. So, no reliance can be placed on such an affidavit. The affidavit filed by the advocate of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document