SANTOSH Vs. KANTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition herein is for setting aside order dtd. 17/3/2023(Annexure P-1) passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby Ld. First Appellate Court dismissed the application, moved by petitioner/defendant, under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC for staying operation of impugned judgment and decree dtd. 30/1/2020 (Annexure P-2) during pendency of first appeal.

(2.) Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner, inter alia, argues that in the instant case, time was the essence of contract. In the present case, the date of alleged agreement is 3/3/2010 whereas the suit was instituted on 8/12/2017 i.e. after more than 7 years. Therefore, even if the target date is not mentioned, then also the period of limitation is three years, but Ld. trial Court had not considered this most crucial aspect and wrongly passed judgment and decree against petitioner. He relies upon the Supreme Court judgment rendered in Mool Chand Yadav and another vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others, (1982) 3 SCC 484 and the judgment of this Court in Ashwani Kumar Bindra vs. Satish Kumar and another, 2018(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1253 in support of his contention that during pendency of appeal, any order having serious civil consequences connected with appeal, ought to be stayed. Resultantly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and operation of impugned judgment and decree has to be stayed during pendency of first appeal.