A judgment debtor must demonstrate sufficient grounds under CPC provisions to warrant a stay of execution, failing which, the court will uphold the trial court's decision.

ORDER :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

This petition by the Judgment Debtor in Ex.Pt.No.75/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC was rejected by the trial Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent/decree holder instituted aforesaid execution proceedings against the petitioner/Judgment Debtor, who entered appearance in the said execution proceedings and filed the instant application seeking stay of the order of attachment of the salary of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor, till disposal of Miscellaneous No.21/2022 pending before the trial Court. The said application having been opposed by the respondent/decree holder, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner by holding as under:

"That the counsel for the JDR filed application and prays to stay the order passed by this court for attachment of salary of the JDR in the interest of justice and equity.

2. It has been stated by the JDR that he has appeared in OS.No.3/2017 which was filed by the DHR. The said suit decreed Exparte. For execution of the judgment and Decree passed in OS No.3/2017 the present suit is filed. JDR has received the notice regarding attachment of his salary which is passed by this court in this Execution petition. He is working as a Teacher in Manvi Taluk of Raichur District, as such he could not able to get the information regarding passing of decree in OS no.3/2017 and filing of this petition. It is stated that he intended to challenge the Judgment and decree passed in OS No.3/2017 by filing Mis.petition, as such prays to stay the order passed for to attach his salary in this petition. It is stated that if this IA is allowed no harm or injustice is going to be caused to the DHR. Further stated that if the IA is rejected it is going to cause irreparable loss and injury to the JDR. Hence prays to stay the order passed for attachment of salary of JDR till the disposal of the Mis. Petition.

3. Per contra, counsel for the DHr filed objections to the IA and contended that IA filed by the JDR is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is contended that on 23.12.2013 JDR has obtained loan of Rs.2.00,000/- from the DHR and has not repaid the same. Hence DHR has preferred a case in OS No.3/2017 against the JDR which came to be decreed on 01.04.2019. Later DHR filed this petition for execution of the Judgment and decree passed in OS No.3/2017. Since from the date of Judgment and decree, eventhough JDR is working as a teacher has not repaid any amount to satisfy the decreetal amount. Now he came up with this application after the lapse of 12 years and prays to stay the order passed for attachment of salary which is devoid of merits. By contending all these grounds counsel for the DHR prays to dismiss the IA with cost.

4. Perused the IA., Affidavit filed in support of the IA and the objections. Below mentioned points arisen for my consideration.

POINTS

1) Whether the JDr made out grounds to consider the IA and grant the relief as sought for?

2) What order?

5. Heard counsel for both parties. Perused the materials available on record. My findings to the above points is as here under.

Point No. 1: In the Negative.

Point No.2: As per the final order for the following.

REASONS

06. Point No.1: this petition is filed by the DHr against the JDr for execution of the decree passed in OS No.3/2017. JDr appeared and filed the objections.

7. Counsel for the JDr argued that