MOHAMMAD BURHANUDDIN Vs. SAVITRI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question I have to answer in these two revision petitions is whether the executing Court is bound to undo the acts and orders it has done and Passed after the Appellate Court has stayed the execution.

(2.) The following circumstances are material for consideration of this question. In O.S. No. 49 of 1969 in the District Munsiffs Court, Bhainsa. there was a decree for possession passed against the present petitioner on his application, the trial Court stayed the execution of the decree under Order 41, Rule 5 (2) Civil Procedure Code till 16th of June, 1972. to enable him to approach the Appellate Court for appropriate stay orders. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred A. S. No. 12 of 1972. to the District Court. Adilabad and obtained orders of stay in I. A. No. 465 of 1972 on 16th of June, 1972. Since the stay was granted by the Court of first instance only till 16th of June, 1972, the matter was posted before that Court for execution. On that day. expecting orders of stay from the appellate Court, the Bhainsa Court adjourned the matter to 17-6-1972. That day however, no formal order was received from the Appellate Court, but the Advocate for the petitioner filed an affidavit that the Appellate Court had granted stay. All the same, since no formal orders were received the Court of first instance vacated the stay on 17-6-1972. C. R. P. No. 1720 of 1972 is against this order vacating the stay.

(3.) On 18th of June. 1972, the present respondent-decree-holder in O. S. No. 49 of 1969 obtained possession of tha property and also withdrew the costs. She claims to have leased out the property to a third person on that day itself. The Court of first instance received a telegram from the Appellate Court at 6.00 p. m. on 19-6-1972 and formal general order on 21-6-1972 intimating it about the stay granted on 16-6-1972. Thereupon the present petitioner filed on 26th of June, 1972, E. A. No. 22 of 1972 to restore possession from the respondent and to direct her to re-deposit the costs. These applications were opposed by the respondent saying that she had already given the land on lease on 18-6-1972 to a third party and it would cause grave inconvenience if possession was then disturbed. Accepting this contention, the Executing Court dismissed on 20th of July, 1972 E. A. No. 22 of 1972. C. R. P. No. 1719 of 1972 is against this order.