PRAVIN Vs. SAVITABEN BABULAL JETANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are filed by the petitioners, who are original opponents in the execution proceedings, challenging two different orders passed on different dates, and it is between the same parties, it is proposed to be determined by this common order.

(2.) Vide application Exhibit-69, the petitioners - Judgment debtors, requested the Court to adjourn the case stating therein that in Special Civil Application No. 10566 of 2021 this Court vide order dtd. 28/7/2021 stayed the execution proceedings. However, the said application Exhibit-69 praying for adjournment came to be rejected on the ground that no copy of such order is produced as also the petitioners - Judgment debtors failed to show that such orders of the High Court is still existing as on that date, and therefore, adjournment application came to be rejected.

(3.) So far as Special Civil Application No. 15599 of 2022 is concerned, production of certified copies for the purpose of proceeding further with an execution cannot be said to be mandatory, in view of Order XXI Rule 11(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as also under the Civil Manual. Over and above that, certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by this Court in Second Appeal was already produced before the executing Court. Not only that xerox copies of certified copy of judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as also the appellate Court were already produced, which is not disputed and rightly so, by the petitioners - Judgment debtors and on that ground, neither the proceedings before the executing Court can be stayed nor rejected by it. Whether stay order granted is in existence on that date or not is immaterial when further proceeding with the execution for want of certified copy as prayed for in application Exhibit-61 is not found to be necessary, I see no reason to entertain the challenge to an order passed below application Exhibit-61 as also application Exhibit-69.