YOUTH CLUB BOLANGIR Vs. PREMALATA KUMARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ambit of. Order 21, Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the question to be determined in this Writ Petition. For proper appreciation, Order 21, Rule 29 is quoted herein below :-

(2.) The fundamental consideration is that when a decree has been passed by a Court in favour of a party he should not be, unless there is extraordinary circumstances, deprived of enjoying the fruits of the decree except for good reasons. It is well settled that a decree remains in force until it is set aside and it should not be lightly dealt with on the basis of surmises and conjectures that in the suit filed subsequently the same may be set aside. A person should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree merely because of suits of frivolous character are instituted. The decree must be allowed to be executed and stay should not be granted as a matter of course. Even if stay is granted, it must be on suitable terms, so that the earlier decree is not stiffered. This view gets fortified by a decision of this Court in the case of Judhistir Jena v. Surendra Mohanty, reported in AIR 1969 Orissa 233.

(3.) The Patna High Court in the case of Subash Kumar v. Sheo Balak, AIR 1976 Patna 307, held that the principles which govern stay of execution in general ought to be principles which would govern stay of execution under Order 21, Rule 29, CPC. The petitioner is required to make out sufficient cause. Such cause is said to have been established if the party is able to prove that he would incur substantial loss; that there are fairly arguable questions; and that the petitioner has come without delay. Though no Court has exclusively laid down the principles on which stay is to be granted under Order 21, Rule 29, CPC, a cumulative reading of all the decisions would lead to an irresistible conclusion that a party has to establish substantial cause and sufficient reasons.