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

2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 11786

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN, J
LILADHAR NATH AND 4 ORS. – Appellant
Versus
HANGMEO THAM AND 10 ORS. – Respondent
CRP(IO) / 363 / 2024



Advocates:
MR G N SAHEWALLA, MR M SAHEWALLA, MS. S. TODI, MR H K SARMA, MS K SARMA

A court can stay execution proceedings when a restoration petition is pending to prevent the appeal from becoming infructuous.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 and Order 21, Rule 26 - Petition challenging execution order - Petitioners sought stay of execution pending restoration of appeal - Execution proceeding initiated despite pending restoration petition - Court held that execution can be stayed until restoration petition is disposed of to prevent infructuous appeal. (Paras 2-8)

(B) Judicial Discretion - Courts have the authority to stay execution proceedings to ensure justice and prevent prejudice to parties involved. (Paras 4, 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed a title suit for declaration of right and injunction, which was dismissed. An appeal was also dismissed for default, leading to a restoration petition. Execution proceedings were initiated by respondents, prompting petitioners to seek a stay.

Findings of Court:
The court recognized the potential for serious prejudice to petitioners if execution proceeded while the restoration petition was pending.

Issues: The court addressed whether the executing court could stay proceedings in light of a pending restoration petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that staying execution is necessary to avoid rendering the appeal infructuous while the restoration petition is unresolved.

Result: Petition allowed; execution proceedings stayed until restoration petition is resolved.

ORDER

23.09.2024 Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. G. Dugar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Order dated 06.06.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum J.M.F.C., Charaideo, in Title Execution No. 04/2023, is challenged in this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 06.06.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum J.M.F.C., Charaideo has dismissed the petition No. 206/2024, filed by the petitioner for staying the execution of the case.

4. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners as plaintiffs had instituted a title suit, being T.S. No. 05/2011, for declaration of right, title, permanent injunction on the basis the averments made in the suit. But, the said suit was dismissed and decreed in favour of the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, being Title Appeal No. 04/2021. But, the same was also dismissed for default. Thereafter, the petitioners had preferred a petition for restoration of the said appeal and upon the said petition, the learned appellate court had registered a case, being Misc. (J) Case No. 02/2024, and while the same was pending before the learned court, execution proceeding was initiated on before the learned trial court, by the respondent herein, being Title Execution Case No. 04/2024, wherein the petitioners had filed a petition for staying the execution proceeding. But, vide order dated 06.06.2024, the learned executing court had dismissed the petition on the ground that the said court has no power at that stage under the CPC for staying the executing case. Referring to Rule 26 of Order 21 of the CPC, Mr. Sahewalla submits that since the restoration petition is pending before the learned appellate court, the learned executing court can be directed to stay the execution proceeding till disposal of the restoration petition, else serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners and the appeal filed by them would become infructuous.

5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 06.06.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum J.M.F.C., Charaideo, in Title Execution No. 04/2023.

6. It appears that the Misc. (J) Case No. 02/2024 is yet to be disposed of and if in the execution proceeding the decree is executed then the appeal will be infructuous.

7. Taking note of the submission of Mr. Sahewalla as well as the relevant provision of law and also considering the given facts and circumstances on the record, this court is inclined to allow this petition.

8. Accordingly, it is provided that the learned executing court can stay the execution proceeding, being Title Execution No. 04/2023, till disposal of the restoration petition, being Misc. (J) Case No. 02/2024.

9. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of, at this motion stage itself.

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 Back to top