Chabi Prasad Singh & Ors vs Mahendra Kumar Agarwalla
2022 Latest Caselaw 2213 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  S.A. No. 247 of 2016
        Chabi Prasad Singh & Ors............                     Appellants
                                Versus
        Mahendra Kumar Agarwalla ............                          Respondents
                                ......

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen ......

For the Appellants : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rohit Roy, Advocate ......

I.A. No. 4709 of 2016 10/23.06.2022 This second appeal has been listed today under the heading for 'Final Disposal' with the consent of the parties, but the time is being sought for by the respondent.

Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is eminent threat of dispossession as the execution case has been filed on the basis of the decree and the finding in the judgment and decree in respect of the counter claim of defendant respondent. The said execution case has been numbered as Execution Case No. 6 of 2011, pending before Sri Rajeev Tripathy, Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-V, Dhanbad. A copy of the document suggesting pendency of the execution case has been filed.

This second appeal has already been admitted for hearing and the question of law has already been formulated. The dispute is in respect of right, title, interest and possession. The appellants, herein, claimed that they are in possession. Filing of the execution case to execute the decree by the defendant-respondent making prayer therein to deliver the possession, clearly suggests that the appellants are in possession over the property in question. Now, at this stage, if during pendency of this Second Appeal delivery of possession is effected, in fact, this Second Appeal may become infructuous or will result in multiplicity of proceedings.

This Court feels that in the interest of justice and as the balance of convenience is in favour of the appellants and prima-facie case is made out by them as this second appeal has already been admitted formulating point of law, there would be irreparable loss if the delivery of possession is allowed to take effect by virtue of the execution case. Thus, this Court feels to stay the execution case. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed. Further proceedings of Execution Case No. 6 of 2011, pending before the court of Sri Rajeev Tripathy, Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhanbad or its Successor Court, shall remain stayed, till disposal of this Second

Appeal.

I.A. No. 4709 of 2016, stands allowed.

S.A. No. 247 of 2016 List this appeal in usual course.

(Ananda Sen, J) Mukund/-cp.2