PRAMODA CHANDRA PANDA Vs. AJAYA KUMAR SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice in the matter of admission was issued to the opposite parties. Pursuant to the said notice, the opposite parties entered appearance. During the course of hearing at the stage of admission, learned counsel for both parties requested for disposal of the revision at that stage for which the matter was heard at length.

(2.) The judgment-debtor in Execution Case No. 6/87 pending in the court of Additional Munsif, Jajpur Road is the petitioner in this revision. The petitioner Judgment debtor filed an application for stay of the execution case under O.21, R.29, C.P.C. read with Ss.10 and 151, C.P.C. which having been rejected by the learned Munsif he has come up with this revision challenging the legality of the said order.

(3.) The facts relevant for the purposes of this revision may be briefly stated as follows : Admittedly the present petitioner was a tenant under the decree holder opposite parties and the latter filed Title Suit No. 82/83 in the court of Munsif, Jajpur praying for eviction of the present petitioner. In the said suit the petitioner entered appearance and filed his written statement alleging that there was an agreement for sale in his favour executed by the present opposite party 1 as the Karta of the family for sale of the disputed house for a consideration stipulated therein and on account of the said agreement, the relationship of a landlord and tenant has ceased for which reason he is not evictable. Ultimately, the said suit was decreed ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 13-9-86 by the Additional Munsif, Jaipur Road to which court the case had in the meantime been transferred. The present execution case has been started by the decree-holders to execute the said decree for eviction. The petitioner has instituted Title Suit No. 48/86 in the court of Sub-Judge, Jaipur praying for specific performance of the contract for sale which is pending. He filed an application for stay of the execution case in the executing court under the provisions of O.21, R.29 C.P.C. read with Ss.10 and 151, C.P.C. on the ground that by virtue of the agreement for sale he is entitled to continue to possess the suit house and he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if he is dispossessed in the execution case pending final disposal of the said suit for specific performance of the contract. The decree-holder opposite parties filed objection against the stay petition that the application under O.21, R.29, C.P.C. is misconceived as the said provision is not available to be applied where the suit and execution case are not pending in the same court. They further contended that there is no legal or factual justification to stay the execution proceeding thereby depriving the decree-holders to reap the fruits of the decree which they have obtained from a competent court of law.