SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1934 Supreme(Nagpur) 41

VIVIAN BOSE
ANANDI PRASHAD – Appellant
Versus
GOVINDA BAPU – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Vivian Bose, A J C—This is an application asking that my learned predecessor's order staying execution be modified by imposing conditions. Execution was stayed exparte on 26th October 1933 without any orders about security and compensation such as are usual in such cases being passed. This application asks that this be now corrected, especially in view of the very long date 20th August 1935, which has been fixed for the hearing.

2. The ordinary rule is that execution is not to be stayed pending an appeal. Order 41, Rule 5(1) expressly says so. Then again, although the Court is given power to stay execution it is subject to certain strict limitations,. and Order 41, Rule 5(3) states very definitely that no order for stay shall be made unless those conditions are fulfilled. It is true ex parte orders staying execution are often made on insufficient grounds, and that they sometimes go unchallenged. But this is no justification for the practice, and still less a reason for refusing to scrutinise an order when it is challenged. Therefore, when an order is challenged it behoves the Court to scrutinise the petition for stay with care, and see that the provisions of the Code are not






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top