ANKUSH Vs. KAUSHALYABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally with the consent of parties.

(2.) The present revision application is against the rejection of the objection which was raised by the applicant under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 29. The non-applicant filed a suit against the defendant under Sec. 6 of Specific Relief Act for possession of Plot No. 58, and that suit was decreed, wherein it was held that the present applicant had illegally dispossessed the defendant. Thereafter, the present applicant filed one another suit registered as Regular C.S. No. 106 of 1995. The original civil suit which was filed under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act was decreed and while the decree therein was tried to be executed, the present objection came to be filed and in that objection, the applicant raised a plea that, he is in possession of the suit plot and for declaration of his title he has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 106 of 1995 which is pending and till the suit is decided finally, he should be allowed to remain in possession on such terms as the Court decides. In the said objection, the applicant has also prayed for the stay of the execution proceedings till the decision of the Reg. Civil Suit No. 106 of 1995. The Trial Court has rejected this objection on the ground that the decree passed in R.C.S. No. 120/93 is binding on the applicant and that the objection was without substance. Mr. Daga submits that the Trial Court was incorrect in rejecting his objection under Order XXI Rule 29. Mr. Daga submits that the Court was bound to stay the execution proceedings on such terms as to security or otherwise as it thought fit. The contention of Mr. Daga is that the discretion under Order XXI, Rule 29 is only in regard to conditions of security etc. and not further. Language of Order XXI, Rule 29 does not justify this extreme interpretation in law. The use of the word 'may' is sufficient to suggest that a wide discretion to grant or refuse stay lies in the Court and the discretion is not limited only to decide the terms of security etc. The discretion in the present case is properly exercised as the applicant having lost in the suit under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act must hand over the possession to the decree-holder therein and cannot perpetuate on the spacious ground that he has filed a subsequent suit on title of the suit land. That would defeat the very purpose of a suit under Sec. 6 of Specific Relief Act.

(3.) The other objection by Mr. Daga is that while rejecting the objection, the Court has given the prima facie finding on the title and has held that the present applicant had no title and as such he could not insist on the continuance of his possession. Undoubtedly the order is slightly unequally worded. However, even if it is held prima facie that the Court has given such finding. It would not be binding on that Court and the respective claims would be decided on merits. There appears no other reason why the execution of a decree earned by the non-applicant should be stayed. As such, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Daga asked for the extension of interim relief which is rejected. Revision dismissed.