PEHLAD Vs. DALEL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that four suits were filed by different plaintiffs against Pehlad, Devi Sahai, Hari Chand, Bhim Singh and Surjan, defendant -appellants and Gopi Ram defendant -respondent in the court of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Ballabgarh, as detailed below : Amount claimed (Rs.) <FRM>JUDGEMENT_174_TLP&H0_1977.htm</FRM> All the suits were consolidated in Civil Suit No. 329 of 1973 and evidence was recorded at one place. The suits were decided by one Subordinate Judge though a copy of the Subordinate Judge was placed separately on the file of each case. Five of the defendants camp up in appeals against the judgment and decrees of the trial Courts to this Court. The numbers of the appeals have been given in the details already given above.

(2.) THEY filed four Civil Misc. applications in the R.F.A. praying that execution that execution of the decrees under Order 41, Rule 5 read section 151, Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called the Act) be stayed. The applications came up for hearing before me and I, after hearing the learned counsel dismissed the same vide order dated September 1, 1977. I, however, directed that the respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the amount on furnishing security for refund of the same to the satisfaction of the executing Court. The appellant went up in appeal against my order before Letters Patent Bench. They, however, withdrew the appeal stating that they wanted to move the Court under Order 41, Rule 1, C.P.C. The appeal was consequently dismissed by the Letters Patent Bench vide order dated 7th October, 1977.

(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that this Court while deciding the previous applications did not take into consideration the provisions of Order 41, Rule 1(3) of the Code. He submits that the Court should have accepted the security from decree -holders. He also criticised the judgment under appeal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the applications filed by the appellant under Order 41, Rule 1(3) and 5 shall amount to an application for review and the circumstances of this case do not warrant that the order passed on September 1, 1977 be reviewed.