Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1477
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MS. B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.
Kandula Chennarayudu – Appellant
Versus
Jonnalagadda Nagamani and another – Respondent
CRP No.105 of 2024
Decided on : 22-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Veerraju
For the Respondent: Surrathi Prasad; Gurrala Praveen Kumar
The Appellate Court's stay order affecting an absent purchaser was unsustainable, highlighting the principle that orders must not infringe on the rights of parties not present in proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure - Sections 94(e), 151, and Order 41 Rule 5 - Civil revision petition filed against interim stay order of the Appellate Court on pending execution proceedings - Appellate Court had directed stay to prevent frustration of appeal purpose, noting potential irreparable loss and inconvenience - The failure to include the purchaser in proceedings led to questioning the tenability of the stay order. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Appellate Authority - The Appellate Court's jurisdiction is limited where its orders cannot affect entities not present in proceedings - Orders must not infringe on the interests of absent parties. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Appellate Court's interim order which stayed further proceedings in an execution application and prevented the confirmation of a sale.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the order affecting an absent party and whether the stay was justified to support the appeal process.
Findings of Court:
The stay order was found unsustainable due to its impact on third parties not included in the proceedings; however, the rest of the stay remained upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the Appellate Court cannot issue orders that negatively affect parties not before it, reaffirming the principle of fair consideration in adjudication.
Result: Petition partly allowed; order set aside regarding the confirmation of sale.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of civil revision petition under article 227. (Para 1) |
| 2. appellate court's authority to stay proceedings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's analysis on the necessity of stay. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. un-sustainability of preventing sale confirmation. (Para 7) |
| 5. modification of appellate court's order. (Para 8) |
| 6. closure of miscellaneous petitions. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.01.2024 in IA No.802 of 2023 in AS No.125 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore filed under Section 94(e) read with Order 41 Rule 5 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to stay all further proceedings including the conducting of auction to be held on 22.08.2023 pending disposal of the appeal in EA No.32 of 2022, EP No.63 of 2017 in OS No.487 of 2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.
2. It is mainly contended that the Appellate Court while passing interim order staying the proceedings in EA No.32 of 2022, further directed not to confirm sale in the absence of the purchaser before the Appellate Court.
3. EA No.32 of 2022 was filed under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the 1st respondent herein who is no other than the wife of the 2nd respondent/JDR, and having failed to get the relief, preferred appeal in AS No.125 of 2023. By filing IA No.802 of 2023 in the said appeal, the 1st respondent sought protection order under Order 41 Rule 5 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to stay all further proceedings as noted above.
4. The petition was contested by the decree holder by filing counter. After hearing the petitioner/appellant and the respondent/DHR, the Appellate Court observed that so many aspects are submitted by the DHR in respect of merits of the appeal itself and unless stay is granted, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be frustrated and therefore without going into the merits of the appeal to be argued, allowed the petition and stayed the orders passed in EA No.32 of 2022 and directed the Execution Court not to confirm the sale till further orders of the Appellate Court and further directed both the parties to co-operate for disposal of the main appeal itself and noted that the stay would operate only on depositing costs of EA into the Court. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed stating that the observation of the Appellate Court that it has no need to go into the merits of the appeal is grossly incorrect and the impugned order would cause irreparable loss and inconvenience and also would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and miscarriage of justice.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that pending the petition in IA No.802 of 2023, the sale was held on 21.09.2023, however without the purchaser being made as a party, the impugned order was passed by the Appellate Court not only staying the order in EA No.32 of 2022 but also directing the Execution Court not to confirm the sale and thus it executed its jurisdiction by passing order detrimental to the interest not only to the petitioner but also the decree holder.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondent stated that the Appellate Court has observed that unless stay is granted the very purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated and therefore, it rightly passed the order of stay and furthermore, the Appellate Court directed both the parties to co-operate for the early disposal of the appeal and that the 1st respondent is ready and willing to co-operate for disposal of the appeal itself.
7. The pertinent question raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of the arguments is regarding the tenability of the order which would affect the interest of the party not before the Court. Therefore, irrespective of the merit in the appeal or the merit in the observation of the Appellate Court that unless the interim stay is granted, the purpose of filin
