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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

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