The interpretation of a stay order in execution proceedings can lead to ambiguity, warranting clarification by a higher bench.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 06-02-2025

Present learned counsel for the petitioner. However, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents, although the respondents appeared through Vakalatnama and attended the proceedings on previous dates.

02. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Munsif-I, Sasaram, Rohtas in Execution Case No. 05 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned executing court refused to proceed with the execution case and recorded its opinion that stay granted by the High Court in Second Appeal No. 315 of 2008 was still continuing and directed the office to seek guidelines from this Court over the continuation of stay.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner filed Eviction Suit No. 03 of 1997 against the respondents-1st set. The suit was decided in favour of the plaintiff in terms of judgment and decree dated 14.12.2001 and 22.12.2001, respectively. The respondents-1st set filed Title Appeal No. 06 of 2002 against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court but the title appeal was dismissed and findings of the learned trial court was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Rohtas at Sasaram vide order dated 18.08.2008 passed in Title Appeal No. 06 of 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondents-2nd set filed Execution Case No. 05 of 2005 before the learned Munsif-I, Sasaram, Rohtas. In the meantime, respondents-1st set filed second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned first appellate court vide Second Appeal No. 315 of 2008. Respondents -1^st set also filed an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 6155 of 2008 for staying the further proceeding in the execution case. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 27.11.2008 passed in Second Appeal No. 315 of 2008, directed that I.A. No. 6155 of 2008 would be considered at the time of hearing of second appeal under Order-41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Till then, further proceedings of Execution Case No. 05 of 2005 pending before the learned Munsif-I, Sasaram had been stayed. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter vide order dated 20.01.2009, the learned Single Judge admitted the second appeal for hearing and framed substantial questions of law. The matter was also ordered to be listed for final hearing on 09.02.2009 within top five cases. Learned counsel further submits that from these two orders, it is apparent that the stay has been granted in this case till the admission of the second appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the petitioner after waiting for quite long time for disposal of second appeal, filed a petition dated 16.03.2021 in Execution Case No. 05 of 2005 to execute the judgment and decree passed in his favour. A rejoinder to the said application was filed by the respondents-1st set and the learned executing court heard the matter and recorded its opinion that stay granted by the High Court in second appeal was still continuing and directed the office to seek guidelines from this Court over the said stay.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that from perusal of the orders dated 27.11.2008 and 20.01.2009, both passed in Second Appeal No. 315 of 2008, it is clear that the stay on further proceeding in execution case was only till hearing of the matter under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter, it was not extended. It was also made clear that I.A. No. 6155 of 2008, which was filed for staying the matter, was ordered to be considered at the time of final hearing. Thereafter, there has been no orders on the said interlocutory application. Learned counsel further submits that, thus, the learned trial court erred in interpreting the said order of this Court with regard to stay operating in the matter. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a landlord and has