RAMESH CHANDRA MOHAPATRA Vs. BISHNUPRIYA MANGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representative of the defendant in Title Suit No. 302 of 1990 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri is the petitioner in this revision. The suit before the trial court was filed by the plaintiff-respondent, for declaration of right, title and possession over the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner herein and others impleaded, from interfering with her possession. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The legal representatives of the defendant filed an appeal before the District Court as Title Appeal No. 53 of 2000. That appeal was apparently admitted under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that appeal, the appellants, the legal representatives of the defendant, made an application for a stay of operation of the decree of the trial court, pending disposal of the appeal. They invoked under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate court apparently passed an ad interim order. On the respondent in the appeal appearing and objecting to the order contending that a stay of declaratory should not be granted in exercise of jurisdiction under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it upheld that objection and without going into the merits, vacated the interim order already passed. The Court did not accede to the argument of the defendants that an order of stay could be passed in exercise of the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure even if it is assumed that there is no provision enabling the grant of such a relief.

(2.) IN this revision, notice was taken out to the respondent by special messenger. Although notice was served on the respondent, he refused to receive the same. In the circumstances, I consider it sufficient service of notice on the respondent.