(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseehced to quash and set-aside the order dated 20th February, 2009, whereby the learned District Judge, Baran dismissed the application seeking stay in the execution of judgment and decree dated 22nd July, 2008.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is revealed that the plaintiff-respondent no.2 Ram Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,08,000/- against the petitioner-defendant in the Court of District Judge, Baran. After the completion of trial of suit, the District Judge decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 22nd July, 2008, wherein it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover Rs. 1,50,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 21st December, 2003 to 20th November, 2005 and thereafter @ 9% rate of interest per annum till its realization.
(3.) THE defendant-petitioner filed the stay application together with the appeal in the High Court and the High Court categorically observed that the execution proceedings would remain stayed provided that he deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- with the executing court towards the satisfaction of the decree. When the stay application against the judgment and decree had already been filed by the petitioner-defendant and the order was already passed by the High Court, the petitioner-defendant cannot be permitted to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. On merits too, the impugned order is not found to be unjust and improper. So far as the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they do not hold good in the facts and circumstances of the case. THE fact is that the instant writ petition is found to be totally frivolous and vexatious and it is found that the petitioner-defendant has endeavoured to abuse the process of court. THE writ petition being totally devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed outrightly.