ABOO RAFAT ANSARI Vs. GOKUL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the appellant of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 170 of 1970, then pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge at Chapra. The application is directed against an order dated the 10th February, 1971, by which the learned Judge rejected the appellant's application for stay of Execution Case No. 66 of 1970, pending in the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, First Court, Chapra.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows. The opposite party had obtained a money decree in Money Suit No. 125 of 1969 from the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, first Court, Varanasi. This decree has been transferred to Chapra and has been numbered as Execution Case No. 66 of 1970, mentioned above. In this execution case, the peti-tioner had filed a petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which application was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 63? of 1970. That miscellaneous case was dismissed on the 5th September, 1970, and from that order Miscellaneous Appeal No. 170 of 1970 is pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, the opposite party had obtained a decree at Varanasi against Messrs. Aboo Rafat Noorul Hoda, a firm and its two partners, and that decree is being executed against Messrs. Aboo Rafat Ansari and Company, of which the petitioner is one the five partners. It is contended, that, the decree obtained at Varanasi cannot be executed against the firm, of which the present petitioner is a partner. It is urged, that, there is no firm in the name and style of Messrs. Aboo Rafat Noorul Hoda, of which the petitioner was a partner. It is contended, that, the execution case was not maintainable and, therefore, the learned Judge ought to have stayed further proceedings in Execution Case No. 66 of 1970. There is no validity in any of the contentions raised bv the learned counsel at this stage. The petitioner had prayed for stay of execution case and, after hearing the counsel appeal for the petitioner, stay has been refused. No question of jurisdiction arises under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage, when the only question is whether the Appellate Court was right in passing the order dated the 10th February, 1971. There is no merit in the civil revisional application and it is dismissed with costs.

(3.) The order of stay stands vacated.