BHAME AMMA Vs. VENKAPPA BHATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order sought to be revised in this case is one granting a stay of delivery in execution of a Small Cause decree which culminated in a court sale of the suit property in favour of the 1st respondent. When the 1st respondent applied for delivery of possession in pursuance of his court purchase, the petitioner offered resistance; whereupon the 1st respondent applied for removal of the resistance. The executing Court by an order dated 8-8-1958 repelled the resistance and ordered delivery. Soon thereafter the petitioner filed O.S. No. 478 of 1958 to establish his rights to the present possession of the property and applied for a stay of the delivery proceedings in the Small Cause suit. The court below, on taking some evidence by the issue of a commission for local inspection to ascertain whether the House Number of the petitioner seen in the records produced by him relates to the house in the suit property, came to the conclusion that there is prima facie evidence that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property and is actually living in the house in the suit property and in that view granted a stay of the delivery proceedings by an interlocutory order.

(2.) In this revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions invoked in the application for stay, viz., O.21, R.29 and S.94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, do not apply to the instant case. It is true that O.21, R.29 and S.94 have little relevance in the matter; but, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the prayer for a stay of the delivery proceedings can be maintained under S.151, CPC. A Civil Court in the exercise of its powers under S.151, CPC. can stay proceedings in execution of a decree in an independent suit if the court comes to the conclusion that in the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court such a stay is necessary See Kondapaneni Raghavaiah v. Inguva Lakshminarayana (AIR 1955 Andhra 4) and Abdul Sukkoor v. Vallabhadas Kanji Firm ( AIR 1950 Mad. 219 ). If a person is actually in possession of the property and it is sought to be delivered in a proceeding to which he was not a party it is certainly a matter that can be regarded as an abuse of the process of court and as such stayed by a Civil Court in exercise of its inherent powers until the matter is investigated and adjudicated against the person in possession of the property.

(3.) No question of jurisdiction, either excess or want of it, arises in this case; nor do I think there is any material irregularity in the procedure adopted by the court below. In the circumstances, the C.R.P. fails and is hereby dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.