RAVINDER KAUR Vs. KULDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 11.12.1992 of the Executing Court whereby the auction of the property of the judgment-debtor, respondent herein has been stayed till the disposal of the appeal pending in this Court.

(2.) Husband of the petitioner died in a road accident which took place on 6.4.1987. His widow, the present petitioner filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of her husband, against Kuldip Singh respondent and others. The respondent in the claim petition were proceeded against ex parte and ultimately, an ex parte award was passed against the respondents. On an application moved by the respondents therein under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the ex parte award was set aside and respondent Kuldip Singh was directed to give security by way of an indemnity bond. He accordingly furnished the indemnity bond on 18.4.1990 before the learned Tribunal, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P1. Ultimately, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- plus interest by award dated 19.11.1990. Since the amount was not paid, the petitioner filed execution application seeking execution of the award. The judgment-debtor filed objections which were dismissed. Respondent did not deposit the amount in the Court as had been undertaken by him in the idemnity bond and consequently his property was attached and was sought to be put to sale for realising the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The respondent moved an application under Order 41, Rule 6(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the sale of property on the allegations that he has filed appeal in this Court against the award of the learned Tribunal which has been admitted to ragular hearing. The Executing Court on a consideration of the matter ordered that the attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor, respondent shall remain operative but the property shall not be put to auction till the disposal of the appeal. The execution application was ordered to be consigned to the record room with liberty to the petitioner to get it revived after the disposal of the appeal. Henco this revision at the instance of the claimant decree-holder.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executing Court could stay the auction of the property only on said terms as to giving security or otherwise, as it thought fit. According to the learned Counsel, the Court could not stay the auction of the property unless some security had been given for payment of the amount in addition to the attachment of the property. Learned Counsel in support, of his submission placed reliance on Mst. Prito v. Iqbal Singh, and Rattan Kaur & Ors. v. Muluk Singh & Ors. It was held in the later judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court that the words "be stayed on such terms as to giving security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit" appearing in Sub-rule (2} of Rule 6 of Order 41 of the Code are significant. The only interpretation that can be put to these words is that unless some type of security in addition to the attachment of the immovable property is furnished by the judgment-debtor, the stay of sale of the property during the pendency of the appeal cannot be granted.