CHERUKURI VENKATESWARLU Vs. PAMIDI KOTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is an execution petition pending before the trial Court. It was listed on 26th March, 1999 on which date the Judgment- Debtor's Counsel represented that the decree had been attached in O.S.No. 3/99 by Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, therefore the execution proceedings be stayed. It was objected to by the other side. The learned trial Court refused to stay the execution of the decree. He found that the attachment order passed under Order 21 Rule 53 C.P.C. does not amount to stay within the meaning of Section 15 of the Limitation Act, therefore, he directed further proceedings in the execution petition and asked the Judgment-Debtor to adduce his evidence. This order is challenged by way of this revision.

(2.) It will be profitable to quote Rule 53 of Order 21 C.P.C.:-

(3.) Sub-rule (sic. clause) (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 clearly lays down that the executing Court has to stay the execution unless and until the conditions laid down in sub-rule (sic. clause) (b) (i) of (b) (ii) (a) or (b) are met. The issue whether the execution has to be stayed or not can be seen from the Rule 53 itself which makes it clear that once a request is made by another Court for attachment of decree the Court in which the execution is pending has to stay the execution till certain conditions are met.