(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 2/12/2019, whereby the Executing Court has dismissed the application for staying the execution proceedings during the pendency of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dtd. 9/1/2014.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the ex parte judgment and decree was passed in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell on 9/1/2014 and that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by the petitioner herein and that it would be in the fitness of things that the execution proceedings are stayed till the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is decided. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Amrik Singh Vs. Jasbir Singh [1995 (3) RRR 519]; Davinder Pal Singh and Anr. Vs. Narinder Pal Singh and Ors. [2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 194]; Sanjay Sharma Vs. Raj Kumar [2020 (2) RCR (Rent) 557] and Gurharbans Singh @ Harbans Singh Vs. Balwant Singh Dhillon and Ors. [2017 (3) Law Herald 2441].
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that the conduct of the petitioner needs to be taken into account in the present case. The ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 9/1/2014 and the execution petition itself was filed in the year 2014. On issuance of notice, the counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Executing Court. However, it is only in the year 2019 that the present application for stay of the proceedings was filed. Learned counsel has further contended that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dtd. 9/1/2014 was also filed in the year 2019 though the petitioner was very well aware of the passing of the ex parte judgment and decree dtd. 9/1/2014 when he had appeared through counsel in the execution proceedings.