IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH MATHUR, J.
Deepak And Another - Petitioners
Versus
Distt. Judge, Hardoi And 8 Others - Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 1271 of 2023
Decided On : 04-04-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 29, Section 47, 151 - Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2001 - Property - Permanent injunction - Title over property - Relief of possession - Suit seeking relief of permanent injunction and subsequently by amendment relief of possession – No explanation has been furnished as to how petitioner was unaware of initial Suit proceedings pending since year 1988 and that too when petitioner has staked a claim in Suit property on basis of co-ownership. [Para 23]
Finding of the Court: Application preferred by petitioner under Order XXI Rule 29 read with Section 151 of Code is also required to be adverted to in which only ground taken is that in Suit filed by petitioner subsequently, issue of title over property is also required to be adjudicated and therefore prayer has been made for stay of execution proceedings pertaining to Suit property - Real brother of petitioner was party to initial Suit proceedings in Regular Suit and in case petitioner was claiming co-ownership of Suit premises, it does not stand to reason that he was or could have been unaware of Suit proceedings which culminated in proceedings right up-till this Court in Second Appellate Jurisdiction - So far as judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner are concerned, reading of same makes it evident that same have been passed only on ground that trial Court had passed orders impugned therein without considering provisions of Order XXI Rule 29 of Code and therefore petition had been allowed remanding cases for fresh consideration in terms of provision - Provisions of Order XXI Rule 29 of Code being inapplicable in present facts and circumstances of case, no exception can be taken to orders impugned.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Manish Mathur, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Anurag Narain Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sharad Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.
2. Vide earlier order dated 24th March, 2023, notices to opposite party nos.2, 4 and 9, being proforma in nature, were dispensed with.
3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of parties today are taken on record.
4. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed raising challenge to the order dated 10th February, 2023 passed in Civil Revision No.6 of 2023 as well as order dated 21st December, 2022 passed by the trial Court under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") as well as revisional order dated 06th March, 2023 affirming the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially Regular Suit No.355 of 1988 was filed by the opposite party no.3 against late Suresh Chandra initially seeking relief of permanent injunction and subsequently by amendment, the relief of possession. The said Suit although was initially dismissed on 08th May, 1996 but Appeal No.115 of 1996 was allowed by means of judgement and order dated 25th September, 2001. Said Appellate Order was thereafter challenged in Second Appeal No.422 of 2001 and was dismissed on merits on 23th November, 2001 where after Execution Application No.1 of 2002 was filed by the opposite party no.3. It is relevant to indicate that the present petitioner was not a party to any of the proceedings.
6. During pendency of the execution proceedings, the present petitioner filed Regular Suit No.474 of 2005 against the opposite party no.3 for permanent injunction which is still pending consideration. During pendency of the said Suit proceedings, an Application under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code was filed by the petitioner on 19th October, 2005 in the execution proceedings. The said application was rejected vide order dated 18th August, 2009 but Civil Revision No.79 of 2009 filed therein was allowed vide judgment and order dated 16th November, 2010 and the issue was remanded for consideration afresh. After remand, the said application for stay of execution proceedings was rejected vide order dated 21st December, 2022 which was challenged in Revision No.6 of 2023 and which has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 10th February, 2023.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Regular Suit No.355 of 1988 was filed behind the back of petitioner who also had a titular interest in the Suit property. It is submitted that the petitioner did not have any notice of either the Suit or subsequent proceedings and had therefore filed the Regular Suit No.474 of 2005 against opposite party no.3 claiming relief of permanent injunction. It is further submitted that when petitioner came to know about the execution proceedings pending at the instance of opposite party no.3, the said application under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code was filed. It is submitted that the petitioner has not filed any objection under Section 47 of the Code in execution proceedings.
8. It is submitted that the trial Court has rejected the application without considering the impact of Suit filed by petitioner in execution proceedings particularly to the effect that petitioner also had an interest in the Suit property and therefore in case of completion of execution proceedings, he would naturally be aggrieved by the said order and therefore it was incumbent upon the trial Court to have stayed execution proceedings till adjudication of Regular Suit instituted by petitioner. It has been further submitted that the trial Court as well as Revisional Court has lost sight of the purpose of Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code. He has also placed reliance upon the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2001 to submit that Civil Judge, Senior Division means and includes various other judicial authorities including any member of the service posted under any o
Shaukat Hussain @ Ali Akram and Others vs. Smt. Bhuneshwari Devi (Dead) by L.RS. and Others
Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir and Others
Balammal & Others vs. Muthiar Begum & Another
Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. & Anr.
Order XXI Rule 29 of Code is stay of execution pending suit between decree-holder and judgment-debtor.
Order 21 Rule 29 CPC applies only when both the execution proceedings and the suit between the decree-holder and judgment debtor are pending before the same Court. Section 151 CPC cannot be used to s....
The executing court cannot stay execution of its own decree; such authority lies with the appellate court.
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
Point of Law : Rule 29 of Order XXI C.P.C. is in fact precautionary in nature so as to avoid miscarriage and failure of justice based on a defective decree.
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.