WANCHOO, C.J.—This is an application for stay filed by Thakur Sajjan Singh in connection with his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of this Court dismissing the applicants writ petition against the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (No. VI) of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The facts leading to this application may be briefly narrated. The applicant filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the validity of the Act. That writ petition was dismissed by this court on the 23rd of August, 1954. Thereupon, the applicant has made an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which is pending in this Court, and notice of it has been issued to the State. The applicant prays (1) that pending the disposal of the application for leave to appeal this Court may be pleased to grant a stay order restraining the State from interfering in any manner with the possession of the applicant over his jagir, or from taking any steps under the Act, and (2) that, in case this Court is pleased to dismiss the application for leave to appeal, the applicant may be granted a stay order in the same terms pending final disposal of his application for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The stay application purports to have been made under sec. 151, and O. 45, r. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State on various grounds. In the first place, it is contended that O. 45, r.13, and sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code have no application to matters coming before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In the second place, it is contended that even if there are inherent powers in this court to pass stay orders in such cases, there is no order of this Court which can be stayed except the order allowing costs to the State. Lastly, it is urged that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the grant of a stay order of the kind prayed for by the applicant.

4. We have heard learned counsel at some length on the questions of law raised in this connection. So far as O. 45, r.13 is concerned, its language makes it quite clear that it is not applicable in terms to this case. It only gives certain powers to the court, including stay of the execution of a decree. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, urges that though O. 45, r.13 does not apply in terms, this Court has power under sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to pass the order which the applicant desires, and has relied on a number of cases in this connection, which we shall now briefly consider.

5. In Nanda Kishore Singh vs. Ram Golam Sahu (1) (ILR XL Cal. 955.) it was held that the High Court was competent to make an order for stay of proceedings in execution of its decree in view of an application by the judgment-debtor to the Judicial Committee for special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. In this case, however, there was an executable decree and the High Court was of the view that it could stay the execution of the decree under sec. 151 where O. 45, r.13 did not apply in terms.

6. In Sarat Kumar Roy vs. Official Assignee of Calcutta (1) (AIR 1931 Cal. 79) there was an appeal to the Privy Council from an order of the High Court setting aside an ex parte decree, and ordering rehearing of a suit on the original side. Thereupon, there was an application to the High Court for staying the rehearing pending disposal of the appeal. It was held that the High Court had power to stay the rehearing under O. 45, r.13 and in any case under sec. 151 C. P. C. It is enough to point out in connection with this case that the suit was pending in the High Court, and an application was made for stay pending the disposal of the appeal before the Privy Council, and the High Court would have power to stay the hearing. These facts are, however, different from the facts of the matter before us, for the writ petition of the applicant has been dismissed, and there is n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document