PRITHVI SINGH Vs. PAHAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff respondent filed a suit against the defendant appellant for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits, which, at the conclusion of trial came to be decreed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant appellant has resorted to the provisions of Sec. 96 CPC by filing the present appeal.

(2.) ON 29. 8. 2005 this Court after hearing arguments of counsel for the parties, while admitting the appeal ordered that execution of the impugned decree passed by the trial Court shall remained stayed, provided the appellant deposits the decreetal amount before the trial Court within sixty days and the plaintiff respondent was granted liberty to file application for modification of this stay order.

(3.) IN Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (Supra), their Lordships of the Apex Court held that landlord-tenant litigation constitutes a large chunk of litigation pending in the courts and tribunals. The litigation goes on for unreasonable lengths of time and the tenants in possession of the premises do not miss any opportunity of filing appeals or revisions so long as they can thereby afford to perpetuate the life of litigation and continue in occupation of the premises. It is thus evident that while passing order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 CPC, the appellants court does have jurisdiction to put the applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its opinion reasonably compensate the decree-holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by the grant of stay order, in the event of appeal being dismissed and in so far as those proceedings are concerned. It must, therefore, be held that this court is competent to impose reasonable terms to compensate the decree holder while passing an order under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 5 CPC.