INDERJIT SINGH Vs. MOHINDER KUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have no reason to believe from the papers on file that a case for interference is made out in this case, or to connect this revision with main RSA Nos. 1673 [Inderjit Singh v. Mohinder Kaur and another] and 3649 of 2018 [Mohinder Kaur and another v. Inderjit Singh] on the oral request of the counsel for the petitioner, in which notices have not been issued so far not to speak of stay of the judgment appealed from. The earlier appeal, that is, RSA 1673 of 2018 has suffered the one non-effective while four dates of hearing have been adjourned on request. These were on 30.5.2018 [case did not reach] 17.9.2018, 11.4.2019 [requests for adjournment made], 18.10.2019 [short accommodation granted to inspect the records and to argue the matter] and thereafter the case was called on 27.2.2019 and was again adjourned to 1.4.2020 on request. The judgment debtor petitioner has shown lack of diligence in prosecuting his appeal for over two years and has surfaced with this petition clamouring for stay of execution of the money decree.

(2.) Accordingly, the execution proceedings cannot be resisted in revision when the main appeal in this Court is yet to be argued either on stay matter or in the main appeal. Obviously, he is in a greater hurry than the respondents. The petitioner has a remedy in appeal against the appellate decree and judgment to press his application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if any, which decree is in execution against the petitioning judgment-debtor.

(3.) The Petitioner's objections have been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalandhar for good and sufficient cause holding that in the absence of a stay order in the appeal from the High Court it can do little to subvert the proceedings and prevent implementation of the relief obtained from the two courts below. The court in execution had held that the objections preferred are not maintainable in a contested money suit for recovery of mesne profits.