In a recent judgement, a single judge bench of the Orissa High Court rejected an application filed to stay proceeding in an execution case ruling that the discretionary power Section 151 should not be misused and is only to be invoked when there's no other remedy available under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Brief Facts:
The present petition has been filed against the order of the Learned Civil Court vide which the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to stay proceedings in an executionc case to set aside a compromise decree was rejected.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the compromise decree in the Civil Suit was fraudulently obtained, impacting the unaware Petitioner, an elderly Paradanasin lady, potentially causing irreparable harm. It was further contended that previous applications to stay execution proceedings under Order XXI Rules 26 and 29 CPC were inapplicable due to the case's unique circumstances, making a Section 151 CPC application for stay maintainable.
Additionally, it was submitted that in the absence of specific Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provisions on stay orders during the pendency of a petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, a Section 151 CPC petition is justified.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that the Petitioner's repeated applications, including those alleging fraud to stay the execution of a compromise decree, were previously dismissed, undermining claims of an ongoing trial in the CMA.
He emphasized that success in the CMA could offer the petitioner relief, but that alone does not warrant halting the execution proceedings.
Observations of the Court:
It was opined that the use of discretionary power under Section 151 CPC is limited to situations where a party lacks any other remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure for addressing grievances, cautioning against its misuse.
Further, the Court observed that the Petitioner's repeated efforts to halt the execution proceedings have been consistently dismissed with detailed justifications. Consequently, the Bench concluded that the executing court rightly determined the current Section 151 CPC petition to be barred by the principles of res judicata.
The decision of the Court:
The Bench disposed of the appeal without interfering with the order of the learned Court below.
Case Title: Malati Nayak vs Kabita Baug and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice K.R Mohapatra
Case No.: CMP No. 114 of 2024
Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Mr. Sidhartha Mishra
Advocates for the Respondent: Advs, Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra, Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Mr. S.S. Rao, Mr. Manash Ranjan Baug.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
