The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order granting a stay of an appellate decree under C.P.C. Article 227, holding the lower court's order equitable and protectable.
Civil revision petition dismissed without costs; lower Court directed to dispose of the appeal within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5125 of 2011
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, allowing the application in I.A. No. 223 of 2011 in A.S. No. 88 of 2011, filed by respondent No.1 for grant of stay of operation of the decree dated 27.07.2011 passed in O.S. No. 38 of 2001 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, pending disposal of the appeal preferred by him.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by respondent No.1 under Order XLI Rule 5 C.P.C. is not maintainable, and as such, the Court below committed an error in granting stay of the judgment and decree appealed, subject to payment of suit costs. He further submitted that if the order under revision is continued to operate, great hardship would be caused to the petitioner and respondent No.1 will enjoy the property and enrich himself. Hence, he prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the civil revision be allowed.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision.
The suit filed by the petitioner is one for declaration of her title and delivery of possession and for mandatory injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No.1. While decreeing the suit as prayed for by the petitioner, the trial Court directed respondent No.1 to hand over vacant
possession of the suit property to the petitioner. Questioning the said decree, respondent No.1 filed appeal before the Court below and sought stay of the decree appealed. The Court below felt that if stay of the decree is not granted, then respondent No.1 would be evicted, in which event, the very purpose of his filing appeal would be frustrated. Holding so, to protect the interest of both the petitioner and respondent No.1, the Court below pending disposal of the appeal granted stay of the decree, subject to respondent No.1 depositing the entire suit costs within one month, making it clear that in default, the stay application stands dismissed.
The order under revision being an equitable order, passed by the Court below, to protect the interest of the petitioner as well as respondent No.1, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed, however, without costs. However, the Court below is directed to dispose of the appeal suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
16th December, 2011 IBL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's order granting a stay of the decree pending appeal under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC.
Whether the lower court acted within its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in granting the stay.
Whether the impugned stay order should be set aside to prevent hardship to the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent No.1
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
