Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HARILAL, J
ABDUL RAHMAN – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL NAZAR – Respondent
OP (CIVIL) 1346/2016
Execution - Civil Procedure - Order 21 Rule 29, CPC - The court dismissed petitions seeking to stay execution proceedings based on pending suits, emphasizing insufficient grounds for such stay under the CPC provisions.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, as Judgment Debtors, sought to stay execution proceedings citing ongoing suits challenging the decree. The Execution Court dismissed their application, leading to this challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no grounds to stay the execution based on pending suits, noting that the petitioners had not obtained a stay in those suits which were not related to the execution processing.
Issues: Whether the pendency of unrelated original suits constitutes valid grounds for staying execution proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the existence of other pending suits does not automatically warrant a stay of execution proceedings, particularly when the petitioners were not parties in the original suit.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Since the parties are common and the matters in issue and relief sought for are identical, both the O.P.(C)s are heard together and disposed of accordingly.
2. The petitioners are the Judgment Debtors in E.P.No.1044/2009 in O.S.No.498/1983 on the files of the 2nd Additional Munsiff’s Court, Thrissur. The petitioner filed E.A.No.756 of 2016 in the aforesaid petition under Order 21 Rule 29 r/w 151 of C.P.C. to stay all the further proceedings in the Execution Petition on the ground that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.1555/2009, O.S.No.1435/09 and O.S.No.212/2010 before the Sub Court, Thrissur challenging the decree, which is sought to be executed in the aforesaid Execution Petition. After considering the objections filed by the respondents, the Execution Court dismissed the said petition, by Ext.P8. The legality and correctness of Ext.P8 order is under challenge in these O.P.C.s.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent and the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The sole ground raised in the Execution Application seeking the stay of all further proceedings in the Execution Petition is that he had preferred O.S.No.1555/2009, O.S.No.1435/2009 and O.S.No.212/ 2010 challenging the decree which is sought to be executed in the above Execution Petition before the Sub Court, Thrissur and he prayed for stay of all further proceedings on the aforesaid ground. The petitioners have not obtained the stay of all further proceedings in this Execution Petiton in the aforesaid Original Suits, which are pending before the Sub Court, Thrissur. The suit is of the year 1983 and Execution Petition was filed as early in the year 2009. The petitioners are not parties in the original suit, in which this execution is sought for. This court is of the view that, the pendency of other Original Suits, to set aside the decree, which is sought to be executed in the Execution Petition is not a sufficient ground to stay the proceedings in this Execution Petition.
5. In the above view of the matter, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dismissing the above E.A. and there is no circumstance or reason warranting interference of this Court under supervisory jurisdiction.
These O.Ps.(C) are dismissed accordingly.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
