The court affirmed the application of S.151, CPC, allowing a stay of execution pending resolution of the title suit, emphasizing the importance of justice.

1. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in T.S. No. 21 of 1960 in the Court of the Munsiff, Kamalpur, have filed this revision petition against the order of the Munsiff, dated 6-1-1961, by which he dismissed their application under S.151, CPC to stay the execution of the decree obtained by the respondent in Rent Suit No. 14 of 1956 pending the disposal of their Suit T. S. No. 21 of 1980.

2. The respondent obtained a decree in the said Rent Suit for ejectment of his tenant, one Nagarbashi Deb, from jote No. 28 of mouja Noagoan. When he went to take possession in execution of the decree, the present petitioners, who are third parties, resisted delivery of possession. On the application of the respondent under O.21, R.97, CPC for removing the obstruction, an enquiry was held. The petitioners' case in the said enquiry was that the land which they were in possession of was jote No. 27 and not jote No. 28. In the enquiry the learned Munsiff appointed a Commissioner and his report was that the land in question was part of jote No. 28. On the strength of the said report, the Munsiff ordered removal of obstruction of the petitioners and directed delivery under O.21, R.98, CPC. Then the petitioners filed civil revision No. 2 of 1960 before this Court. But the said revision was dismissed on the ground that the remedy for the petitioners was by way of a regular suit under O.21, R.103.
Then the petitioners came forward with the present suit for a declaration of their right to present possession of the land and for setting aside the order of the Munsiff. In the suit itself they requested for stay of proceedings in execution case No. 11 of 1959 till disposal of the suit and also for restoration of possession in case the respondent dispossessed them through Court by way of execution. After filing the suit, they put in a separate petition under S.151, CPC for stay of execution. The learned Munsiff was of opinion that S.151, CPC will not apply and he relied on the decision Narayanan Chettyar v. Ma Saw Hla , AIR 1941 Rang. 6'0. He was also of opinion that the matter having been fully investigated in the proceeding under O.21, R.97, CPC and it having been found that the decretal land was not covered by jote No. 27 as alleged by the petitioners, there was no reason to deprive the respondent of the relief he had obtained after a protracted litigation by an order of stay.

3. Now in revision, it was argued that S.151, CPC is the only section which could be applied in the present case, that the petitioners had no other remedy, that the order passed by the Munsiff under O.21, R.98 is subject to the result of the suit brought by the petitioners as provided under O.21, R.103, CPC, that as the petitioners were in possession in their own right, justice required that their possession should not be disturbed pending the suit and that if their possession is disturbed, complications are likely to arise if they succeeded in the suit. For the respondent, the order of the Munsiff was supported and it was stressed that the petitioners not being party to the decree, the execution should not be stayed under S.151, CPC, that the respondent has been trying to get relief for 6 years and he has been thwarted successfully till now and that the same tactics should not be allowed to be adopted any further and that if the petitioners succeed in the suit, they can always gat back possession by way of restitution.

4. I am unable to agree with the learned Munsiff that S.151, CPC will not apply to the case. The decision AIR 1941 Rang. 60, dealt with a quite different set of facts. That was not a case in which a suit was filed under O.21, R.103 or O.21, R.63. That was a case where a decree was obtained against an estate, rep