HADIBANDHU SENAPATI Vs. CHAMPAMANI BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Direction of learned District Judge, Balasore requiring the petitioners to furnish cash security of Rs. 5,500/- by way of deposit in his Court as a condition precedent for continuance of stay is the subject-matter of challenge.

(2.) Fact situation is almost undisputed. Title Suit No.150 of 1987 was filed by opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 as plaintiffs against the petitioners, who were defendants 2 and 4, claiming their right, title and interest over the suit property. Another suit bearing Title Suit No. 222 of 1980 was filed by one Upendra Senapati against the petitioners and others, and those two suits were taken up together by the learned trial Judge. Ultimately T. S. No.150 of 1987 was decreed against the petitioners and defendant No. 3 on contest and ex parte against other defendants. The right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the suit property were declared and defendant No. 2 was directed to give delivery of possession of the land to plaintiffs. It was directed that in case of failure to deliver possession, the plaintiffs were at liberty to take possession of the property through Court, it was further held that the plaintiffs were entitled to get arrears of rent as claimed in 'Kha' schedule at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month from defendant No. 2 during pendency of the suit till delivery of possession of the land. Execution Case No. 31 of 1994 was levied against the petitioners to take delivery of possession and for realisation of arrears of rent, which was stayed ex parte by the learned District Judge by order dated 20-2-1995. The opposite parties sought for vacation of the order on the ground that security as required under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'CPC') ought to be demanded from the petitioners. On the other hand petitioners contended that there was no provision in the CPC for seeking vacation of the interim stay, and since no money decree had been passed there was no requirement of furnishing security. The plea did not find acceptance by the learned District Judge, who directed furnishing of security as stated above.

(3.) In support of the revision application Mr. P. Kar, learned counsel submitted that the scope and ambit of Order 41, Rule 5 of the CPC has been misconstrued by the learned District Judge. According to him, there was no requirement for furnishing security unless the decree related to a money decree, and in any event cash security should not have been directed.Mr. S. Misra (2), learned counsel for opposite parties on the other hand supported the order.