IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR FA No. 442 of 2022 (M/S INDUS RESIDENCY PRIVATE LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI DHARAMPAL SINGH S/O SHRI PARVAT SIN AND OTHERS Vs SHAILENDRA SHARMA AND OTHERS)

Dated : 03-07-2023 Shri R.K. Sanghi – Learned counsel for appellants.

Shri Saket Agrawal - Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri Manoj Singh - Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.6/State.

Heard on I.A.No.7226/2023, an application under Section 151 of the CPC filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to withdraw the decreetal amount deposited by the appellants.

2. It is stated in the application that the learned trial Court has passed the money decree in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to the tune of Rs.1,41,00,000/- (One Crore Forty One lacs) alongwith interest as mentioned in the operating part of the impugned judgment and decree. The appellants have deposited an amount of Rs.35,25,000/- in compliance of the order dated 16/08/2022 passed by this Court, which is lying with the executing Court. It is alleged that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are more than 60 years of age, the respondent No.3 is also 70 years of age and the respondent No.4 i.e. Smt. Rajkumar Sharma (mother of respondent No.1) has already expired during pendency of present case without enjoying the fruits of the decree. It is further stated that the sale deed in question has been executed in favour of the appellants in the year 2010 and since then the entire sale consideration has not been paid to the present respondents by depriving them from the sale consideration. The respondents are facing intense financial crisis and are in dire need of money. Since the money decree was passed in favour of respondents Signature Not Verified and it is well settled principle that the money decree cannot be stayed unless there is extra ordinary circumstance, hence respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellants/judgment debtor. Hence it is prayed that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 may be permitted to withdraw the decreetal sum that has been deposited by the appellants before the Executing Court. The application is supported by an affidavit of respondent No. 1 Shailendra Sharma.

3. Reply of the said application was filed on behalf of appellants, in which it is stated that the impugned judgment and decree are not at all well reasoned and the impugned judgment is perverse and has been passed without considering the facts of the case. The impugned judgment and decree passed against the appellant No.1 is highly defective in as much as the contents of Ex.D-2 has not been seen at all by the trial Court. It is also stated that the appellant No.1 deposited Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lacs only) on 31/01/2022 and Rs.25,25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five lacs twenty five thousand only) on 21/12/2022, which is lying with the Executing Court. At the time of filing of the suit itself respondent No.4 Smt. Rajkumari Sharma was aged about 82 years. Respondent No.3 Ku. Rita Sharma is having no occupation and the respondents have no property to their name, therefore, if a permission to withdraw the amount is granted, it would be impossible for the appellants to get back the amount under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is also stated that in this case extra ordinary circumstance exists for staying the money decree and hence respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are not entitled to withdraw the sum deposited by the appellants. The sale deed was executed in the year 2010 and detailed reasons are already mentioned in I.A.No.4429/2023 filed by the appellants. At the time of execution of sale deed, appellant No.1 paid a sum of Rs.36,00,000/- to the Signature Not Verified respondents/vendors, hence in total the appellant No.1 has already paid a sum of Rs.71,25,000/-. It is also stated that since the respondents have categorically admitted that they are facing intense financial crisis and in dire need of money, this shows that the contention of the appel