Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prathvi And Anr vs Bootaram And Ors on 5 March, 2021
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 69/2004
Prathvi And Anr
----Appellant
Versus
Bootaram And Ors
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Khatri.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Thind.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 05/03/2021 The matter comes upon an application filed by the appellants under Section 151 CPC seeking extension of interim orders dated 29.01.2004 & 11.03.2019.
Submissions have been made that the interim orders were granted by the court staying the dis-possession of the appellants from the land in dispute on conditions indicated therein.
However, based on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2018) 16 SCC 299, the executing court is insisting for getting extension of the interim orders granted by the court and that on account of the said judgment in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (Supra) it is alleged that the appellants are being harassed by the respondents as well.
This Court by order dated 22.01.2021 in M/s Abhinav Gold International And Ors. v. Ramswaroop: SBCFA No.299/2014 has already opined that the order in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (Supra) has no application to cases where already the decree has been passed and the suit is not pending with the (Downloaded on 05/03/2021 at 08:48:56 PM) (2 of 3) [CFA-69/2004] trial court and the said order cannot be applied to pending execution application.
It was inter-alia observed in the case of Abhinav Gold International (supra) as under:-
"When it was pointed out to learned counsel for the appellants that the direction in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (supra) has apparently no application to the facts of the present case, wherein the trial is not pending, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the executing courts are insisting for getting extension of the interim order even in execution cases, in view of the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (supra).
In the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, directed as under:-
"37. .... .... .... ..... Mandate of speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as other cases where at trial stage proceedings are stayed by the higher court i.e. the High Court or a court below the High Court, as the case may be. In all pending matters before the High Courts or other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by a speaking order on above parameters. Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate/revisional courts under the jurisdiction of the High Courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced."
(emphasis supplied) A perusal of the above direction indicates that the same is confined to matters, which are pending before the trial court i.e. the suits wherein trials are pending, the same has no application to the cases where the suits have concluded and decree has been passed.
(Downloaded on 05/03/2021 at 08:48:56 PM)
(3 of 3) [CFA-69/2004]
Merely because execution proceedings
pertaining to the decree is also pending before the trial court, the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the execution proceedings. In view thereof, there is no necessity to order for extension of the interim order, which is already unlimited."
In view thereof, the application filed by the appellants is disposed of with the above clarification that the interim orders granted by this court on 29.01.2004 and 11.03.2019 shall remain in force during pendency of the appeal and that the same would not come to an end based on the directions in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (Supra).
Another application has been filed under Order XXII Rule 4 & 9 CPC inter-alia indicating that respondent No. 1/3 has died during pendency of the appeal.
Issue notice of the application to the proposed legal representatives as indicated in para 2 of the application.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 62-pradeep/-
(Downloaded on 05/03/2021 at 08:48:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)