BURMA RICE MILLS Vs. OM PARKASH JAGDISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two civil revisions, No. 974 and 975 of 1991, directed against the order dated 23.1.1991 passed under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned District Judge, Patiala while admitting Civil Appeal No. 271 dated 5.10.1990 and Civil Appeal No. Z70 dated 5.10.1990 against the judgment and decree of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Rajpura in the two cases. Both these revisions are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same facts and involve common question of law and facts.

(2.) The respondents in the two revision petitions, namely Firm Om Parkash Jagdish Kumar and Firm Muni Lal Devinder Kumar obtained money decrees against the petitioners. The petitioners preferred regular first appeal in the Court of District Judge. The petitioners applied for stay of execution under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned District Judge stayed the execution of the decree subject to the deposit of Rs. 1,25,000/- by the petitioners in the first case and a sum of Rs. 1,50,0001- in the second case by a specified date. Through these revision petitions, the aforesaid orders of the learned District Judge have been called in question.

(3.) Shri Hament Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners contended, in the first instance, that the petitioners had entered into an agreement with the respondents in the two cases in hand as well as some others on 15.10.1984 agreeing to sell rice mill etc. of the petitioners for an agreed amount and had in pursuance of the agreement handed over the possession of the property -to the respondents and other agreement purchasers. As objection was, therefore, taken in the suit that the claim for recovery of money was not maintainable- and the remedy of the respondents was to implement the aforesaid agreement. His second submission is that on the passing of the decree, the respondents-decree-holders took out execution and 19 Bighas and 29 Biswas of land belonging to the petitioners was attached. The aforesaid land provided sufficient security and it would cause great hardship to the petitioners to deposit in cash the amount ordered by the lower appellate Court. In fact, the petitioners were not in a position to pay that much money and that is why they were forced to enter into an agreement of sale of their property. Failure of the petitioners may, therefore result in deprivation of even their right of appeal. It was, therefore, urged that sufficient security had been provided by the attachment of the aforesaid land and no further security should have been ordered by the Court.