BACHU BHAI PATEL Vs. ASHOKA KUMAR SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision has been listed for orders on the application for stay vide above noted Misc. Case. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds that there is no illegality or jurisdictional error committed by learned Additional District Judge, Bargarh, in passing a conditional stay order on 1.2.2002 in Title Appeal No, 6 of 2002.

(2.) IT is mentioned in the revision application and also learned counsel for the petitioners states that Title Suit No. 46 of 1999 filed by the petitioners claiming right, title and interest over the disputed property was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bargarh as per the decree passed in Title Suit No. 46 of 1999 which is under appeal, as above, in the court of Additional District Judge, Bargarh. He further states that the counter claim of the defendant who is the opposite party in this revision claiming as the owner of the house and describing the petitioners as his tenant was decreed in that suit with a decree for arrear and future house rent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a xerox copy (true copy attested) of the certified copy of the decree, the relevant portion of which reads as hereunder:

(3.) CONSIDERING the provision of law in Sub -rule (1) read with Sub -rule (3) in Rule 5 of Order XII, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. However, it is observed, that keeping in view Clause (c) in Sub -rule (3) of above stated Rule 5, the petitioner, if so advised, may file an application for furnishing the property security instead of cash security and in such event it is left to the discretion of the lower appellate Court to consider the same and modify the order of stay with due exercise of judicial discretion. With the said observation, the revision stands dismissed and order to issue notice on admission is accordingly recalled.