Allowed

The Block Development Officer v. Rajendra Store and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Sept 2019I.A.(Civil)/2957/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted an interim stay on the execution of a money decree pending the disposal of an application for condonaton of delay in filing an appeal, subject to a deposit of 40% of the decretal amount.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay on execution of the decree in Money Suit No.9/2010 till disposal of the pending application, subject to deposit of 40% of the decretal amount.

The Block Development Officer Vs Rajendra Store and… — Execution and Attachment | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010214062019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 2957/2019

¶5

1:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

¶6

RUPSHI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK, RUPSHI, DIST. DHUBRI

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:RAJENDRA STORE AND 3 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETORS HARPIT SINGH AND AWTAR SINGH, D.D. ROAD, DHUBRI, P.O. DHUBRI, PIN 783301

¶10

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI ASSAM.

¶11

3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DRDA DHUBRI ASSAM.

¶12

4:ROBIN ROY

¶13

STORE KEEPER RUPSHI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK RUPSHI ASSAM PIN 78333

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D N BHATTACHARYYA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 05-09-2019

¶20

Heard Mr. BC Das, learned senior counsel for the applicant.

¶21

Page No.# 2/3

¶22

This application under Section 151 CPC has been filed praying for interim stay of the execution of the decree passed in Money Execution Case No.1/2011.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that an ex-parte decree was passed in Money Suit No.9/2010, by the learned Civil Judge Dhubri against the present petitioner and the petitioner was not aware of the said ex-parte decree. Having come to know about the ex-parte decree, initially the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree which was dismissed. The appeal filed against the said order passed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, was also dismissed. However, while dismissing the appeal against the order passed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the petitioner was given the liberty to file appeal and therefore, the petitioner ultimately filed an appeal. As there was delay in preferring the appeal, an application under Order XLI Rule 3(A) CPC was filed for condonation of delay.

¶24

In the said petition, the petitioner also prayed for staying the execution, as the decree holder already instituted the execution proceeding. While issuing notice in the application filed by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 3(A) CPC in I.A. (Civil) No.1967/2019, this Court observed that the matter of stay shall be considered once the notice is served on the parties. The said order was passed on 12.06.2019 and immediately steps for notice was taken on the next day i.e., 13.06.2019.

¶25

On 28.08.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner, on query, came to know, that notices were still pending to be dispatched from the registry. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the execution proceeding is already instituted and therefore, as a result of the delay in service of notice on the decree holder/respondent, the executing Court is proceeding with the execution and the next date has been fixed on 12.09.2019 for execution of the decree. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant petition under section 151 CPC for passing of interim stay till disposal of the I.A (Civil) No.1967/2019 or till admission of the appeal.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the execution of the decree in Money Suit No.9/2010 shall remain stayed till disposal of the I.A.(Civil) No.1967/2019, subject to depositing 40% of the decreetal amount to the executing

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

Court.

¶29

The parties shall be at liberty to seek modification/alteration/ vacation of

¶30

this interim order.

¶31

The I.A. stands disposed of.

¶32

J U D G E

¶33

Smita

¶34

Comparing Assistant

The Block Development Officer v. Rajendra Store and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Block Development Officer v. Rajendra Store and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

On the Death of Late Motleb Hussain Sarkar, His Legal Heirs- Vs Smti. Charu Bala Sarkar and 7 Ors.

Md. Akhtar Ali Vs Md. Harej Uddin Ahmed

Santa Ram Rabha Vs Ramesh Rabha and 3 Ors.

Raju Ali @ Intaj Ali Vs the State of Assam

Makum Motors Ledo and Anr. Vs M/S Ujjal Transport Agency

Tarani Kanta Mandal and 4 Ors. Vs on the Death of Jogendra Ch. Das His Legal Heir- Kusum Das and 5 Ors.