Disposed

Yogendra Paswan v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC20 Sept 2013CWJC/14571/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court stayed execution proceedings and directed the trial court to conclude the pending title appeal within six months to ensure the ends of justice. The court found the original warrant of stay to be premature given the pending status of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Stayed execution proceedings for six months; directed trial court to conclude Title Appeal No. 61/09 within six months.

Yogendra Paswan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Specific Performance | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14571 of 2011

¶2

====================================================== Yogendra Paswan S/O Jugeshwar Paswan R/O Vill.- Chakbhikhan @ Sahikhan Nawada, P.O. And P.S.- Dalsingsarai, Distt.- Samastipur Defendant .... Appellant .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Land And Reforms Department, Govt. Of Bihar 2. Ashok Kumar Rai S/O Late Sahdeo Rai R/O Vill.- Chaknoor, P.O.Rahamtpur, P.S. And District- Samastipur. Plaintiff.... Respondent .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary Mr. Anil Kr. Tiwary For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Rina Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI

¶3

SHARAN SINGH

¶4

ORAL ORDER

¶5

9 20-09-2013 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21.06.2011 passed by learned A.D.J.-V^th (F.T.C.), Samastipur, in T.A. No. 61 of 2009 whereby a petition filed by the petitioner dated 08.04.2011 for stay of the proceeding of the Execution Case, during pendency of the said appeal came to be rejected.

¶6

It appears that in a suit for specific performance of contract, the petitioner was the defendant. The suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 08.04.2011. Against the said judgment and decree, the Respondent No. 2 filed Execution Case No. 1 of 2010 which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division No. 1) Samastipur. Prior to filing of the Execution Case, the petitioner had filed Title Appeal vide T.A.

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.14571 of 2011 (9) dt.20-09-2013 P2/3

¶8

No. 61 of 2009. After filing of the Execution Case, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the execution proceeding during the pendency of the appeal. The Court below has rejected the said petition solely on the ground that even if the decree was executed, it would cause no irreparable loss to the petitioner as in case he succeeded in appeal, his possession would be restored.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Court below ought to have considered the prima facie case of the petitioner and the aspect that the suit property is a dwelling house and balance of convenience required execution of the decree to be stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 on the other hand while opposing this writ application has supported the impugned order and contends that in case the appeal is decided in favour of the petitioner, certainly possession of the house can be restored in his favour and, therefore, there is no question of any irreparable injury being caused to the petitioner, if the decree is executed.

¶11

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I find that the Title Appeal is pending since 2009. For the ends of justice, I direct the Court of

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.14571 of 2011 (9) dt.20-09-2013 P3/3

¶13

learned A.D.J.-V^th , (F.T.C.), Samastipur, to conclude the said Title Appeal No. 61/09 within a period of six months from the date / communication of a copy of this order before his Court. The Executive Court shall not proceed in Execution Case No. 01/10 further for six months from the date of production / communication of this order before the said Court.

¶14

The parties shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment

¶15

hampering disposal of the said title appeal No. 61/09.

¶16

This application is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)

¶18

Saif/-

Yogendra Paswan v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Paswan v. the State of Bihar and 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

Rabindra Prasad Vs Sita Devi

Brahmdeo Yadav Vs Jagdish Manjhi and Ors.

Saroj Kumar and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gopi Nath Kashyap and Anr. Vs Dwarika Prasad Kashyap and Ors.

Deo Narayan Kamti Vs Surendra Kumar Singh @ Shyamal

Faiyaz Ahmad Vs Maulvi Nurul Ain and Ors.