Execution problem
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Querist) 15 December 2011
This query is : Resolved
Learned members I am unable to recall my earlier post on the same issue, that's why i am referring in short here-
I applied for the execution of decree which was confirmed by High Court. Defendant appealed against the judgment of high court in supreme court, but could not obtain stay order from SC, despite long time given by executing court.
After a long time defendant got an order from SC which provides " BOTH THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO MAINTAIN STAUS QUO"
I argued before court that this order is only for the parties and in this order court is not directed to stay the execution proceeding.
Executing court in favour of plaintiff, passed order to proceed ahead.
Defendant again filed revision against this order. Before revisional court I put two case laws of SC before court - Which envisage -
" MERE FILING OF PETITION OR APPEAL OR SUIT, WOULD BY IT SELF NOT OPERATE AS STAY UNTIL SPECIFIC PRAYER IN THIS REGARD IS MADE AND ORDERS THEREON ARE SO PASSED"
" Or 41 Rule 1 OF THE CODE STIPULATES THAT FILING OF AN APPEAL WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO AUTOMATIC STAY OF THE EXECUTION OF THE DECREE- EXECUTION OF THE DECREE DURING PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL WOULD, SUBJECT TO THE RESTITUTION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE EVENT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE DECREE IS SET ASIDE "
Now the revisional court says, as the parties are directed to maintain status quo, how can a party can proceed or argue before court.
Sir the matter has been a prestige isuue now for the plaintiff, What should be the next step of the plaintiff. Please advice.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 16 December 2011
High court is absolutely right.
Maintaining status quo is indeed a stay order which directs both the parties to be in the same position as of now till the appeal is heard by the supreme court.
The execution proceeding needs to be stayed. This is nothing but a 'stay order'.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 16 December 2011
BOTH THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO MAINTAIN STAUS QUO" SO continue STAY ORDER.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 16 December 2011
Order of SC is self explanatory. Parties have been directed to maintain status quo means no party can agitate now before any court qua the execution and they have to maintain similar say same position prevalent as on day so no lower court can intervene therein.
Prestige issue should not over and above legal position. You try to get the case disposed off from supreme court as soon as possible and this is the only point of prestige now.
Guest
(Expert) 16 December 2011
I endorse the views of experts.
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Querist) 16 December 2011
Thanks to all seniors for guidance, whether RTI may be helpful if, plaintiff file RTI to court and ask that-
1. What is the status of matter in present time, whether there is any stay from higher court?
2. If not why the proceeding is not going on.?
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 17 December 2011
1. No such RTI is not applicable in such matters rather he can obtain its certified copy.
2. No comment because there may be various reasons behind this non...word
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 17 December 2011
I differ in view.Construing any order directing parties to maintain status quo as an stay of execution proceeding may prove costly with regard to limitation of execution.As it is not that the order has expressly stayed the operation of the decree
then executing court can proceed because term "status quo" is always too ambiguous with relation to its' interpretation then in my opinion either the execution should be continued through out even beyond revisional court order or a petition for clarification should be moved to avoid any set back on limitation front.
