SMC GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil revisional application as filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order no. 7 dated 20-05- 2016 passed by the learned Registrar, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Money Execution Case No. 395 of 2014 wherein the Executing Court was pleased to stay the execution proceeding till the disposal of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as the Act of 1996) which is pending before the District Judge, South 24-Parganas at Alipore in Misc. Case No. 10 of 2014.

(2.) It is the grievance of the petitioner representing by Mr. Chandra, learned Advocate, that the learned Registrar passed one blanket order of stay which is totally against the principle as laid down in Order 21 Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has stipulated that the Executing Court may pass stay order but such stay order must be for a limited period and that as per clause (3) of Rule 26 before making an order of stay execution, or for the restitution of property or the discharge of the judgement-debtor, the court shall require such security from, or impose such condition upon the judgement-debtor as it may think fit.

(3.) Learned Advocate took me to the impugned order wherein the learned Registrar clamped an order of stay till the disposal of Misc. Case No. 10 of 2014. Thus, according to learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, this order cannot sustain in view of Order 21 Rule 26 of the C.P.C. He submitted that when the District Judge which is a far superior court rather the Appellate Court, is in seisin over that arbitration proceeding, the learned Registrar ought not to have passed blanket order of stay. He, however, conceded that the said Registrar had the power to grant stay only for a limited period exercising his discretion and imposing the condition as laid down in sub-rule (3) of that Rule.