Revision against dismissal of execution stay application. The High Court found laches by petitioners in delaying the stay application after receiving execution notice. No irregularity found under Article 227. Revision dismissed.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood dismissed. No order as to costs.
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 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.2500 of 2012
ORDER:-
This revision is directed against the order dated 3-2-2012 passed in E.A.No.735 of 2011 in E.P.No.56 of 2011 in O.S.No.122 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Order XXI Rule 29 of C.P.C.
When the Civil Revision Petition came up for admission, respondents No.1 and 2 entered appearance through a Counsel. The other respondents are only proforma parties.
The petitioners herein and respondents No.3 to 7 are defendants in O.S.No.122 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The suit ended in decree on 19-11-2009. Thereupon the petitioners herein filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. along with delay condonation application. The delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stated to be pending consideration. While so, the petitioners filed E.A.No.735 of 2011 in E.P.No.56 of 2011 under Order XXI Rule 29 of C.P.C. seeking stay of the execution of the proceedings. The said application has been resisted by the Decree-holders, who are respondents No.1 and 2 herein. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated 3- 2-2012. Hence, this revision.
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2.
It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that if the execution of the Decree granted in O.S.No.122 of 2007 is not stayed, the applications moved by the petitioners to set aside the ex parte decree and also condonation of delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree would become infructuous.
Learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 supported the order impugned in the revision.
As seen from the material placed on record, the petitioners entered appearance in Execution Petition on 3-6-2011. They did not choose to file the petition at the earliest point of time. Nearly five months thereafter, they filed the application under Order XXI Rule 9 of C.P.C. seeking stay of the execution of the proceedings. There are latches on the part of the petitioners in moving the application even after receiving the notice in Execution Petition. The learned Senior Civil Judge taking into consideration of this aspect proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioners. I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the order impugned in the revision warranting interfering of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J
20th September, 2012 smr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any irregularity or illegality in the lower court dismissal of the stay application under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC warranting interference under Article 227.
Whether the petitioners' delay in filing the stay application renders the ex parte decree infructuous if not stayed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondents 1 and 2
Respondents 3 to 7
B. Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
