High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
T. Periyasami & Another
Versus
Selvarasu & Another
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1553 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided On : 11-08-2010
Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC - Stay of Execution Proceedings - The court held that pending application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, if the execution proceedings are allowed to be proceeded with without granting stay, then the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC would become infructuous, which is not the scheme contemplated in CPC. The court emphasized that before effecting delivery, once there is such an application, it is the bounden duty of the Executing Court to deal with the application at the first instance as per law and postpone the delivery.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioners filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC and also filed a petition seeking stay of the execution proceedings pending disposal of the application. The Executing Court made an endorsement allowing the execution proceedings to proceed without granting stay, leading to the filing of this revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Executing Court should deal with the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC at the first instance as per law and postpone the delivery, emphasizing the need to process the matter as per law.
Issues: The issue revolved around the necessity for granting stay of execution proceedings pending disposal of an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC and the duty of the Executing Court in dealing with such applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that pending application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, the execution proceedings should not be allowed to proceed without granting stay, and the Executing Court has a duty to deal with the application at the first instance as per law and postpone the delivery.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was disposed of, and the Executing Court was directed to process the matter as per law.
Inveighing the order dated 07.04.2010 passed in EA No.250 of 2010 in EP No.14 of 2010 in OS No.636 of 2008, by the learned District Munsif, Namakkal, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Niggard and bereft of the details, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
(i) The revision petitioners herein filed the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC and they also filed REA No.250 of 2010 seeking stay of the execution proceedings, pending disposal of the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC in REA No.249 of 2010.
(ii) The Executing Court in the said E.A.No.250 of 2010 made endorsement as under:
Notice given to other side for R1
Notice of hg. and counter of R1
Issue notice to respt. By R2 3.6.10"
(extracted as such)
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that pending application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, if the E.P. is allowed to be proceeded with without granting stay, then the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC would become infructuous and that is not the scheme contemplated in CPC. Accordingly, he prays for suitable orders to be passed by this Court.
6. Whereupon, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that absolutely there is no necessity for filing this revision, as the lower Court has not passed any revisional order within the meaning of Section 115 of CPC. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent/decree holder, so far delivery has not been effected. In this factual matrix, it is clear that there is an application filed by the revision petitioners herein under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC which is pending before the Executing Court.
7. It is a trite proposition of law that before effecting delivery once there is such an application, it is the bounden duty of the Executing Court to deal with the application at the first instance as per law and once the Executing Court is seized of the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, the delivery has to be postponed. As such, such a safeguard is contemplated in the law itself. By way of abundanti cautela this REA No.250 of 2010 was also filed and in that only notice was ordered. Wherefore, keeping in mind the above observations of this Court, the Executing Court shall process the matter as per law.
Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.