[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Singh vs Ravi Tiwari on 28 November, 2025
1 MP-6919-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 28th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 6919 of 2025
SANTOSH SINGH
Versus
RAVI TIWARI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Atul Anand Awasthy - Senior Advocate with Shri Rupesh Singh
Thakur - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P-
12 dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Appellate Court, thereby refusing to stay
the execution proceedings.
2. The petitioner is defendant - judgment debtor in a decree for a
specific performance of agreement, which has been granted by the trial Court
on 16.01.20120. The decree is an ex-parte decree and application of the
petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was filed in the year 2022 has
been rejected on 18.02.2025 against which an appeal has been filed by the
petitioner before the Appellate Court.
3. While the appeal was pending, the decree holder had initiated
execution proceedings for executing sale deed and for recovering possession.
The Appellate Court vide order dated 08.11.2025 granted conditional stay to
the petitioner noting that since the draft sale deed has been presented before
2 MP-6919-2025
the Registrar and it is going to be registered on 12.11.2025. Looking to these
circumstances, the Appellate Court directed that if the appellant furnishes
bank guarantee of an amount of Rs 7.50 lakhs within 3 days before the
Executing Court, then for a period of 1 month the registration of sale deed
shall remain in abeyance and fixed the appeal for further orders on
29.11.2025.
4. The petitioner did not furnish the bank guarantee within 3 days and
submitted an application on 12.11.2025 stating therein that he does not have
sufficient funds to furnish the bank guarantee and he needs some further time
of around 2 to 3 days.
5. The aforesaid application was considered by the Appellate Court on
14.11.2025 vide Annexure P-10 and the Appellate Court noted the fact that
the initial time limit of 3 days from 08.11.2025 expired on 11.11.2025 and
even the extension which has been sought of 3 further days has expired on
14.11.2025, but till date no steps have been taken by the petitioner
judgement debtor for furnishing the bank guarantee.
6. The petitioner failed to bring on record any steps taken by him for
furnishing the bank guarantee till 14.11.2025. Consequently, the Appellate
Court rejected application for extension of time.
7. On 14.11.2025, the execution of sale deed took place and only
delivery of possession remained to be carried out. The petitioner filed urgent
hearing application before the Appellate Court and the case was taken up on
22.11.2025 and again on 24.11.2025, on which date the Appellate Court
rejected his prayer for staying the execution of decree.
3 MP-6919-2025
8. Today learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
argued before this Court that the petitioner could not have furnished the bank
guarantee within 3 days and it was impossible for him to have furnished bank
guarantee within 3 days. This Court queried that the Appellate Court on
14.11.2025 had observed that in the last 6 days, no steps have been taken for
furnishing bank guarantee, then till this date, i.e. till 28.11.2025 what steps
have been taken by the petitioner for furnishing bank guarantee and whether
the bank guarantee has been prepared till date, because 20 days from the date
of order of appellate Court have already passed. This was replied by learned
Senior Counsel contending that the petitioner would require at least 15 more
days to furnish bank guarantee.
9. From such assertions, it is evident to this Court that the petitioner
willfully is avoiding complying with the condition imposed by the Appellate
Court while staying the execution of the decree and neither the petitioner
complied with the conditions within stipulated time, but has not complied
with even till today and today also he is seeking at least 15 days more time
for compliance. It only depicts nothing but unwillingness of the petitioner to
comply with the condition imposed by the Appellate Court and in such
circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence of this Court to
further stay the execution of the decree.
10. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
4 MP-6919-2025
rj
