The court established that execution proceedings affecting residential premises warrant a stay when irreparable loss to occupants is probable.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER

16 19-01-2026 Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2024 This interlocutory application has been filed for staying the further proceeding of Execution Case No. 01 of 2018 pending in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Pupri, Sitamarhi as well as delivery of possession of the property which is part and parcel of residential-cum-commercial premise of the appellant no. 3.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the sale deed has been executed in favour of the plaintiffs/decree holder with regard to the suit land on 13.02.2025 through process of the court and it is necessary to press this application for staying the further proceeding of delivery of possession with regard to the suit land. It is further submitted that vide order dated 30.07.2025, the present appeal has been admitted and is pending for final adjudication.

3. It is submitted that the suit property has been purchased by the appellants through two sale deeds i.e. Exhibit C and Exhibit C1. It is submitted that appellant nos. 1 and 2 have their separate residential accommodation in the vicinity which has been constructed by them out of their own income. It is further submitted that appellants purchased the residential house with open land in the year 2005 and since then, appellant no. 3 has been residing therein with his family members and the said house is standing over Khata No. 940, Plot No. 3349, an area 7 decimals and remaining portion of the suit land is situated adjacent to the said house. The appellants purchased the house in question with open land and excess area of land beyond requirement of appellant no. 3 was purchased by appellant nos. 1 and 2, who have their separate and personal residential accommodation. As appellant no. 3 had no residential house, he purchased the said house for his residential purpose in which he is residing with his family members to which the appellant nos. 1 and 2 have no concern whatsoever. Further, it is submitted that the plaintiffs filed a single suit against two sale deeds having three plots with different boundaries. All the three plots were amalgamated into a single block. It is further submitted that since the instant appeal has been admitted and an execution case is pending for delivery of possession, if delivery of possession is effected, which has been coming in use and occupation of the appellants, will cause irreparable loss.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Tej Rani & Ors. Vs. Smt. Indira Devi & Ors. reported in 2001 (1) PLJR 661, wherein, this Court has held that “…. the appellants are in possession of the house in question, in the circumstance, the decree is being executed in the execution proceeding with respect to residential house and having regard to the well settled views of this Court, we feel inclined that the execution proceeding shall remain stayed with respect to the house in question.”

5. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Sugan Chand Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Jivt Shah and Ors. reported in 1984 BLJR 244 (DB), wherein, this Court has held that “It is usual practice of this Court for granting order of stay for execution case for delivery of possession to put the losing party to terms.”

6. Learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Rajaram Prasad Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramchandra Prasad and Ors. reported in (2008) 10 SCC 796 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “The suit property is a residential house in which the appellants are residing. It is well settled that where the subject of the suit is residential premises and the judgment debtor is residing in it, prayer for stay is ordinarily granted.”

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/decree holder submits that the suit land is not residential house, rather, the land was Raiyati at the time of execution of sale deed by the appellants and the house standing over the sa