Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parmanand Bandil vs Smt. Saroj Devi on 26 March, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MP-566-2017
(PARMANAND BANDIL Versus SMT. SAROJ DEVI & OTHERS)
Gwalior, Dated : 26.03.2018
Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadoriya, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
Shri V.K. Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel with
Shri Rohit Batham, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Challenge is to an order dated 24.10.2017, whereby the executing Court in execution case No. 5- A/14/2017 declined to stay the execution of decree as ordered on 14/10/2017.
Indisputably, the petitioner is a judgment debtor having suffered an eviction decree; whereagainst Second Appeal No.474/2017; however, there is no stay in said Appeal. That, on 15/09/2017, respondent decree holder filed an application for execution of decree whereon notices were issued and the matter was posted for 13/10/2007. On 13/10/2017 the judgment debtor appeared and sought for copy of application. The matter was posted on 10/11/2017 for reply, arguments. However, by order dated 14/10/2017, the executing Court without recording a finding that the judgment debtor is duly informed, preponed the case on an application for early hearing from 10/11/2017 to 14/10/2017 and passed the order of issuance of warrant and possession and posted the 2 matter for 10/11/2017. It was this order dated 14/10/2017, the stay whereof was sought vide application under Section 151 CPC which was dismissed by impugned order dated 24/10/2017.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the trial Court did not ensure that the judgment debtor is informed of the preponement of case from 10/11/2017 to 14/10/2017 when the warrant of possession was issued, this Court is of considered opinion that the proceedings of 14/10/2017 and therefore stood vitiated.
In view whereof, the proceedings from 14/10/2017 including the order dated 24/10/2017 are set-aside, the parties are relegated to the stage as it was on 13/10/2017. The executing Court after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties shall decide the application for execution afresh, expeditiously; however, not later than 15 days from the date of communication of this order.
Petition is finally disposed of in above terms. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) Judge Aman Digitally signed by AMAN TIWARI Date: 2018.03.28 19:33:23 -07'00'