LAWS(APH)-1974-8-29

MOHD SURHANUDDIN Vs. SAVITRI BAI

Decided On August 23, 1974
MOHD.SURHANUDDIN Appellant
V/S
SAVITRI BAI Respondents

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 Munsiff's 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 June, 1972. Since the stay was granted by the Court of first instance only till 16th 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 17th June, 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 noformal orders were received the Court of first instance vacated the stay on 17th June, 1972. C.R.P. No. 1720 of 1972 is against this order vacating the stay.

(3.) On 18th June, 1972, the present respondent decree-holder in O.S. No. 49 of 1969 obtained possession of the 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. p. M. on. 19th June, 1972 and a formal general order on 21st June, 1972 intimating it about the stay granted on 16th June, 1972. Thereupon the present petitioner filed on 26th 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 18th June, 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.