UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARBANS SINGH TULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An award to the tune of Rs. 13 lacs was passed in favour of respondent - Harbans Singh Tuli and sons. An application to make the said award rule of the Court was made. The petitioner - Union of India filed objections and after the matter was put to issues and trial, the learned trial Court confirmed the award and made the same rule of the Court vide judgment passed on 17th Sept., 1990. The Union of India carried an appeal against that judgment before the District Judge, Chandigarh. During the pendency of the appeal, they also filed an application under Order 41, Rules 5 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh. The District Judge, Chandigarh, passed an order on 10th April, 1991, operative part of which runs thus:

(2.) It is the aforesaid order, which has been impugned in the present petition. Besides the fact that this is purely a discretionary order and such discretionary orders do not require any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, I also find no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned in this case. The award dated 18th Aug., 1989, was in favour of the respondent. Objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed and the award has been made rule of the Court. While deciding the application for stay filed by the petitioner before the first Appellate Court, the interest of the petitioner has been sufficiently safeguarded. The respondent can not withdraw the amount till such time he furnishes adequate security or Bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs by specifically giving an undertaking to refund the whole or part of the decretal amount if the decision of the appeal, preferred by the petitioner, turns against the respondent. Obviously, this security/Bank guarantee has to be furnished by the respondent before the trial Court after due notice to the petitioner. Once refund of the amount in wake of reversal of the order passed by the trial Court is ensured, I do not find any reason/why the respondent should be debarred from reaping the fruits of litigation, which so far has turned in his favour.

(3.) Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, I dismiss this petition. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.