The judgment debtor must demonstrate sufficient cause for a stay of execution; failure to show such cause justifies the rejection of the application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 21 Rule 26 and Section 151 - Application for stay of execution - Petitioners filed an application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC, which was rejected by the trial court - The petitioners contended that a second appeal was pending and an interim order from a Coordinate Bench should have been considered - The court found that no substantial question of law was framed in the second appeal, and no injunction was issued to stay execution - The court ruled that the petitioners had sufficient time to seek a stay but failed to do so - The Coordinate Bench's interim order was not binding as it did not address the relevant dates - The trial court's rejection of the application was justified. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Execution of Decrees - The judgment debtor must show sufficient cause for staying execution; failure to do so justifies rejection of the application. (Paras 3-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC, arguing that a pending second appeal warranted consideration for a stay of execution. The first appeal was dismissed, and no substantial question of law was framed in the second appeal.

Findings of Court:
The trial court acted within its jurisdiction in rejecting the application as no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioners for staying execution.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC in light of the pending second appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the judgment debtor must demonstrate sufficient cause for staying execution, and the absence of an injunction from the appellate court justified the trial court's decision.

Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

Petitioners are aggrieved of the decision of learned First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jatara, District Tikamgarh dated 3.08.2024, whereby an application under Order 21 Rule 26 read with Section 151 C.P.C. is rejected.

Petitioners' contention is that petitioners have already filed second appeal in which notices were issued on 21.03.2024, therefore, the application under Order 21 Rule 26 C.P.C. should have been entertained.

Reliance is placed on a decision of a Coordinate Bench dated 09.09.2024 in W.P. No.26989/2024 (Bhura Mallah Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others) wherein the Coordinate Bench had granted 90 days time asking the respondents to not to take any coercive action against the petitioner so to facilitate in an obtaining temporary injuction in the pending second appeal.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, it is an admitted fact that first appeal of the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2023 passed by learned First District Judge, Jatara, . Thereafter, in second appeal notices were issued on 2 MP-6529-2024 21.03.2024. It is admitted that neither any substantial question of law has been framed nor there is any injunction from the second appellate court on execution of judgment and decree of the trial court.

Impugned order has been passed on 03.08.2024, rejecting an application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC. On going through the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 26 CPC, it is evident that, firstly, the judgment debtor is required to show sufficient cause for stay of the execution of such decree for a reasonable time to enable the judgment debtor to apply to the court by which the decree was passed or to any court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution thereof.

In the present case, admittedly, first appeal filed by the judgment debtor was dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2023. Thereafter, in second appeal, notices were issued on 21.03.2024. Between 03.08.2024 and 21.03.2024, judgment debtor had sufficient time of more than four months to seek stay on the execution of judgment and decree from the competent appellate court ceased with second appeal. But there is no order from the second appellate court and, therefore, learned executing court is justified in not entertaining an application under Order 21 Rule 26 read with Section 151 CPC, inasmuch as no ground could be made out to stay the execution of judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

As far as, the order of the Coordinate Bench is concerned, dates of filing of the second appeal and the date on which first appeal was decided are Signed by: MOHD TABISH NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:59278 (VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE MTK 3 not mentioned in the said order. Therefore, this order though finalize the disposal of the petition but being in the nature of interim order, will not bind MP-6529-2024 this court as a matter of precedent.

Therefore, petitioners case being different on facts as discussed above.

There is no illegality in the action of the trial Court, in rejecting an application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC.

Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:59278 Signed by: MOHD TABISH

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 38575

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHSHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL, JDharamdas – AppellantVersusHarnaryan Yadav – RespondentMP 6529/2024

The judgment debtor must demonstrate sufficient cause for a stay of execution; failure to show such cause justifies the rejection of the application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL, J
Dharamdas – Appellant
Versus
Harnaryan Yadav – Respondent
MP 6529/2024