The provisions of Clause (d) of Rule 13(2) of Order 45 do not enable the Court to give any direction to the successful party either restricting the exercise of rights or preventing him from exercising the rights to which he has become entitled under its final order.

Kapur, J.

1. This is an application made by Sarup Lal who has obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment of this Court dated 24-12-1953. This certificate was granted on 21-7-1954. He has now applied under Order 45 Rule 13 Civil P. C. praying that the operation of the order of this Court be suspended and respondents 1 & 2 be restrained, from alienating the property sold to them. Rule was issued by me and as I was of the opinion that this matter should be heard by a Division Bench and not by a single Bench the case has been placed before this Bench.

2. Leave was granted on 21-7-1954 and the application for stay was made on 26-9-1955.

3. An objection has been raised that under Order 45 the prayer made in this petition cannot be granted. The present petitioner sold to the opposite parties some land and disputes arose in the Revenue Department as to mutation and the Chief Commissioner ordered the mutation to be set aside and mutation proceedings to be started de novo. It was against this order that the opposite parties brought a petition to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This petition was allowed and in the present application made by Sarup Lal petitioner it is stated that during the years 1954 and 1955 the opposite parties entered into 41 transactions of sale with the result that about half of the land sold has already been sold.

4. The petitioner relies upon Clauses (b) and (d) of Rule 13(2) of Order 45, but in proceedings such as the one now before us neither of these two clauses are applicable. The matter was considered by a Bench of the Madras High Court in Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. V/s. State of Madras AIR 1953 Mad 475 (A) where it was held that Clause (d) of Rule 13(2) does not enable the Court to give any direction to the successful party either restricting the exercise of rights or preventing him from exercising the rights to which he has become entitled under its final order. In that case also the petitioner seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court had prayed for the grant of stay of the operation of the order made by the Court and the prayer was rejected because it did not fall within the scope of Clause (d) of Rule 13 (2). It was observed:

"That provision only enables this Court to place the party seeking the assistance of the Court under any conditions which this Court may think fit to impose. And it enables this Court to give such other direction, that is to say, direction other than a direction placing the party under any condition respecting the subject-matter of the appeal, such as for instance, by an order directing the appointment of a Receiver. The provision does not enable this Court to give any direction to the successful party by way of restricting or preventing him from exercising the rights to which he has become entitled under the final order of this Court."

5. The respondents next relied upon a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Laliteswar Singh V/s. Bhabeshwar Singh 1 Ind Cas 812 (Cal) (FB) (B) where it was held that a Court cannot under Rule 13(2), Clauses (c) & (d), stay proceedings after preliminary decree is passed, because they are proceedings in the suit and not proceedings In execu-tion. It was observed:

"It is clear that it gives power to stay execution of the decree, it does not give the power to stay proceedings under the decree. The learned Advocate General has argued that the power is in-eluded under Sub-section (d) which I have just read; but we do not think that the section bears the in-terpretation which he places upon it. Order 41, Rule 5 provides in express terms under what condition the proceedings under a decree can be stayed, and we think that if it had been intended, under Order 45, Rule 13, to place that power in the hands of the Court whose decree is appealed from it would have been given in the same express terms."

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Chet Ram V/s. Ram Singh 64 Ind Cas 152 (C) refused