Back
C. JAYACHANDRAN
Antony Frederic Baiju, S/o Peter – Appellant
Versus
Titus Shyju, S/o Peter – Respondent
What is the requirement for a petitioner to establish a sufficient cause to seek a stay of a decree under Order XXI, Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure? What is the presumption in favor of a registered settlement deed? How does Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure impact the execution of a decree when a prior suit is pending?
Key Points: - The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.27/2021 arising from O.S. No.465/2015 and is aggrieved by orders allowing the decree holder to break open a lock to hand over possession of a shop room (!) . - The petitioner sought a stay of execution based on the pendency of a prior suit, O.S.No.133/2015, and the application of Order XXI, Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure (!) . - The court found little merit in the petitioner's contentions, emphasizing that Order XXI, Rule 29 requires the petitioner to establish a sufficient cause for a stay (!) . - The court noted that a registered settlement deed carries a presumption in its favor (!) . - Order XXI, Rule 29 is not an imperative rule but a matter of discretion to be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each case (!) . - The court found no irreversible situation would be created by executing the decree, as rights and equities can be considered in the pending suit (!) . - The decree in question has completed all rounds of litigation, including a second appeal (!) . - The Original Petition was dismissed (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.27/2021 arising from the judgment and decree in O.S. No.465/2015 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kochi. He is aggrieved by Exts.P11, P14 and P16 orders of the learned Munsiff. Ext.P11 order allowed an application preferred by the decree holder to depute an Amin to break open the lock, so as to handover the possession of the subject shop room to the respondent/decree holder. Against Ext.P11 order, a review petition was preferred vide Ext.P12. However, the same was dismissed vide Ext.P14. Simultaneous with the review petition, an application for stay of execution of the decree was also preferred, which was dismissed vide Ext.P16.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ judgment debtor and the respondent/decree holder.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit which was decreed, O.S.No.465/2015, was preceded by another suit, O.S.No.133/2015, the plaint of which is produced as Ext.P7. It was also pointed out that an order of injunction in recognition of the rights of the petitioner herein was passed, vide Ext.P8. The suit, which was decreed and which is sought to be executed, was filed subsequently. In the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
