Skip to main content

Stay Of Execution Of Decree Pending Suit To Be Granted Only In Exceptional And Extraordinary Cases

In Sayed Nair Hasan vs Santi Singh, the writ petition was filed before the HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, by the petitioner/judgment-debtor directed against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the petitioner's/judgment debtor's application under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the said order was unsustainable and bad in law as present is a fit case where the trial Court ought to have exercised discretion vested in it under Order 21 Rule 29 of the CPC.

The High court said that the jurisdiction to stay execution of decree under Order 21 Rule 29 of the CPC has to be exercised with great care and only in exceptional and extra-ordinary cases as the power to grant stay is discretionary. Though the power to grant stay is discretionary, yet it should be exercised on certain legal principle.

Referring to the judgment in Judhistir Jena v. Surendra Mohanty, the Court said that the fundamental consideration is that the decree has been obtained by a party and he should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree except for good reasons. Until that decree is set aside, it stands good and it should not be lightly dealt with on the off-chance that another suit to set aside the decree might succeed. Such suits are also of very precarious nature. The allegations therein ordinarily would be that previous decree was obtained by fraud or collusion or that the decree was not binding on the present plaintiff as the transaction entered into by the judgment-debtor was tainted with immorality and thus onus being very heavy on the plaintiff to establish fraud and similar charges. That being the position, a person should not be deprived of the fruits of his decree merely because suits of the frivolous character are instituted and litigants are out after further series of litigations. The decree must be allowed to be executed, and unless an extra-ordinary case is made out, no stay should be granted. Even if stay is granted, it must be on suitable terms so that the earlier decree is not stifled. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in what cases stay would be granted or refused. But as has already been stated, a rigorous test is to be applied. 

Rejecting the application for stay, the High Court decided that a close perusal of the above-stated averment in the application would show that merely on the ground of pendency of civil suit stating the decree passed earlier is not executable, Order 21 Rule 29 of the CPC is sought to be invoked. There is no averment in the application that decree earlier granted was passed on the basis of fraud played or on the basis of mis-representation or any other strong or exceptional ground is pleaded to stay the operation of decree granted earlier. No such extra-ordinary case is made out to grant stay of execution of decree.

Article referred: https://www.livelaw.in/stay-of-execution-of-decree-pending-suit-between-decree-holder-and-judgment-debtor-shall-be-granted-only-in-exceptional-and-extraordinary-cases-chhattisgarh-hc-read-order/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more