The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by third parties challenging the dismissal of their interlocutory application to stay execution proceedings. The Court held that using Section 151 CPC to stay execution arising from a separate suit was impermissible and found no reason to interfere.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2498 of 2013
ORDER:
The petitioners are third parties so far as the relief in E.P.No.1100 of 2010 pending before the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, is concerned. The present application in I.A.No.775 of 2011, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed by the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, under the impugned order dated 27.04.2013. This revision is directed against the said order.
The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 is daughter and petitioner No.2 is son-in-law of respondent No.13. The petitioners state that respondent No.13 (Smt Askari Begum) had executed kararunama dated 05.05.1985 (agreement) in their favour with regard to the suit schedule property and, on the basis of which, they claim ownership. The petitioners state that respondent No.1, who is now represented by her legal representatives, had set up an agreement from respondent No.13 and filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.12 of 1999 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The said suit was decreed on contest, and the first appeal in A.S.No.21 of 2007 filed by respondent No.13 was also dismissed. Thereafter, the decree holder filed the present E.P.No.1100 of 2010. At that stage, the petitioners herein, claiming to be having kararunama (agreement) on behalf of the said respondent No.13, filed a suit for declaration of title for suit schedule property and permanent injunction in O.S.No.355 of 2011 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. In the said suit, the present application in I.A.No.775 of 2011 is moved seeking
stay of the proceedings in E.P.No.1100 of 2010. The Court below dismissed the said application which is challenged in this revision.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners points out the factual mistake of the Court below in not noticing the petitioners’ averments in the said I.A. However, the substance of the order of the Court below clearly shows that the Court below was not satisfied with the petitioners’ claim in the said I.A. Even otherwise, I have permitted the Learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the Learned Counsel for the respondents to argue the matter afresh on merits.
It is evident from the record of the case that respondent No.13 has contested the earlier suit for specific performance but has never set up the agreement as claimed by the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners, who are making claim for declaration of title, are yet to succeed in the said suit. At the moment, the respondent - decree holder, in the specific performance suit, seeks to execute the decree which was confirmed by the Appellate Court. It is also to be noted that the petitioners, who have filed the present independent suit, seek stay of Execution Petition arising out of some other suit, which is not permissible, and the powers, under Section 151 CPC, cannot be utilized for the said purpose. The Court below, therefore, has rightly found no merits in the said petition and, accordingly, dismissed the said I.A. I find no reason to interfere with the said order.
The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J
Date: 01.10.2013
usd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 151 CPC powers can be utilized to stay execution proceedings arising from an independent suit filed by third parties.
Whether the revision petition challenging the dismissal of the interlocutory application for stay deserves interference.
Whether the lower court committed an error in finding that petitioners have not succeeded in their declaration suit to stop execution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Respondents
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
