Rajasthan High Court
Ghanshyam S/O Shri Ramoli vs Kedar Nath Son Ram Ratan Udaiya on 15 July, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. 2nd Stay Application No.837/2022
In
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 98/2021
Ghanshyam S/o Shri Ramoli & Anr.
----Appellants- Applicants
Versus
Kedar Nath Son Ram Ratan Udaiya, & ors.
----Respondents-Defendants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satyavrat Sharma with
Mr. Pranava Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
15/07/2022
1. Heard on the second stay application.
2. Appellant-defendants have preferred first appeal assailing
the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2020 passed in civil suit
55/2016 by Additional District Judge No.01, Hindaun City, Karauli
whereby and whereunder their registered sale deed dated
31.01.2007 was declared as null and void. No decree for handing
over the possession of disputed property has been passed in
favour of respondent-plaintiffs.
3. Vide order dated 17.08.2021 while admitting the first appeal,
parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of
possession of the suit property and later on the stay application
was disposed of vide order dated 30.09.2021.
(2 of 3)
4. It appears that respondent-plaintiffs proceeded with
execution of the impugned judgment and decree during pendency
of the first appeal for reasons that operation of the impugned
judgment was not stayed. Hence, appellants have moved second
stay application.
5. The counsel for appellants submits that respondents have
proceeded to execute the decree for the purpose of getting an
endorsement in the registry about the cancellation of sale deed
and further are inclined to alienate the suit property.
6. Counsel for respondents has filed reply to second stay
application and submits that in view of Rule 65 of the Rajasthan
High Court Rules, the second stay application should be heard by
the same judge, who has passed the order on the first stay
application. However, respondents have not denied that they are
proceeding with the execution of impugned judgment and decree
in order to get endorsement on the registry about cancellation of
sale deed and have not denied the apprehension of alienation.
7. Heard learned counsel for both parties, this Court finds that
the second stay application has been filed in changed
circumstance and on different cause of action accrued on
proceedings for execution of the impugned decree, which is
permissible. Since the first appeal itself has been admitted for
hearing, it would not be appropriate that respondent-plaintiffs be
allowed to proceed for execution of impugned judgment and
decree, particularly when this Court has already passed stay order
to maintain the status quo in relation to possession of the
property in question.
(3 of 3)
8. Thus, in the interest of justice, during pendency of the first
appeal, in addition to the previous stay order dated 17.08.2021, it
is hereby directed that operation of the impugned judgment and
decree dated 18.12.2020 shall remain stayed with further
direction that both parties shall maintain status quo as to
alienation of the suit property.
9. Accordingly, second stay application stands disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
TN/52
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
