Parties cannot pursue stay applications simultaneously in different courts without risking delays; the conduct of petitioners may warrant dismissal of stay requests.

Judgment

Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide which the application filed by the petitioners for staying the operation and execution of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 03.08.2012 (Annexure P-1) during the pendency of the application (Annexure P-5) under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit for recovery of ¹ 31,48,700/- (¹ 18,30,639/- as principal amount and Rs. 13,18,061/- as interest @ 24% per annum) was filed by the respondents/DHs against the petitioners-JDs. This suit was decreed ex parte on 03.08.2013. Execution petition was filed. The execution petition was, however, sent to Delhi by the Executing Court at Ludhiana. The petitioners-JDs appeared before the Executing Court at Delhi on 03.12.2021 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree was filed by the petitioners-JDs at Ludhiana. Alongwith the said application, an application (Annexure P-6) for stay of operation of the judgment and decree in question was also filed. Reply to the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed (Annexure P-7) vide which the application was opposed. The basic ground taken in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was that the petitioners-JDs had never been served. Reply to the application for staying of operation and execution of the judgment and decree was also filed which is on record as Annexure P-8. Vide the impugned order, the said application for stay of operation and execution of the judgment and decree was dismissed leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the paper book.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-JDs has strenuously urged that the Executing Court gravely erred in dismissing the application for stay of operation and execution of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 03.08.2013. It has been submitted that the petitioners-JDs had never been served and the service report had been manipulated by the respondents/DHs. It has been contended that though the execution proceedings have been sent to Delhi, the application for stay of the operation and execution of the ex parte judgment and decree is very well maintainable before the Court which passed the decree and that the Court at Ludhiana has erroneously held that such an application would not be maintainable before it. It has been submitted that the Court at Ludhiana would duly have the jurisdiction to entertain such an application and to pass an appropriate order. It has also been submitted that it is settled law that during the pendency of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the decree should not be executed and Courts should not rush through to execute such decrees. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by Bombay High Court in Second Appeal No.1046 of 1927 titled as ‘ Fatehchand Rampratap and Others Vs. Jitmal Rupchand ’, 1929 AIR (Bombay) 418, judgment passed by the Lahore High Court in Misc. First Appeal No.773 of 1929 titled as ‘ Hanuman Bakhsh and Others Vs. Chunna Mal ’, 1930 AIR (Lahore) 199, judgment passed by the Manipur Judicial Commissioner Court in Civil Revision Case No.19 of 1965 titled as ‘ Thoudam Ningol Ningthoujam Onghi Vs. Leisangthem Tombi Singh ’ , 1966 AIR (Manipur) 15 and the judgment passed by Patna High Court in A.F.O.O. No.309 of 1948 titled as ‘ Radheyshyam and Others Vs. Devendra ’,