V V SURYANARAYANA SHETTY Vs. V PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by one of the judgment-debtors who undisputedly suffered an order of eviction. He, therefore, in Ex.Case No. 639/1987 on the file of the City Civil Judge (CCH.7) Bangalore sought by an application numbered as I.A.No.2, stay of further execution proceedings on the ground that he had filed a suit against the decree-holder in respect of another property which was in the possession of the decree-holder and which originally belonged to the 2nd Judgment-debtor and from which he had sought eviction of the decree-holder. The Court refused to accede to that contention on the ground that it cannot go beyond the decree which it was executing and therefore once the High Court had refused the judgment-debtor-1 in the case any further time beyond 31st May, 1987 it would not be proper for the executing Court to accede to the contention of the 2nd judgment-debtor. In the result, I.A.No.2 came to be dismissed. Therefore, the present revision petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C.

(2.) The only proposition canvassed in this Court is that under Order XXI Rule 29 of the C.P.C. the executing Court has the power to grant stay if the suit between the same parties is filed, whether in that Court or in any other Court of equal status. Such a construction may not be possible on account of language of Rule 29 of Order XXI of the C.P.C. which is as follows:

(3.) For the above reasons, this revision petition is misconceived and it is rejected.