Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parmanand Raghuvanshi vs Shyama Bai & Ors. Judgement Given By: ... on 29 November, 2013
S.A.No.1047/1997
29.11.2013
Shri K.K. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, learned counsel for
respondents No. 1 to 5.
I.A.No.9274/2013 an application for modification of order dated 28.7.2011 is treated as an application for grant of stay afresh instead of treating it as an application for modification/ review of the order passed by this Court in second appeal. I.A., is made for the purposes that the interim stay was granted to the appellant vide order dated 3.2.1998, which order has remained in operation till 28.7.2011. Only because of non- appearance of the learned counsel for the appellant, the interim order was withdrawn. It is stated that execution proceedings have been initiated by the respondents and the decree passed by the first appellate Court is put in execution.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents informs that the proceedings for execution are fixed in the month of December 2013, and in case the early hearing of the appeal is directed, the respondents/plaintiffs will not insist upon execution of the impugned judgment and decree.
Considering the aforesaid, it is directed that the execution proceedings initiated against the appellant shall remain in abeyance till the month of January 2014.
Let the appeal be posted for hearing on 7.1.2014 with a clear stipulation that in case the same is not argued by learned counsel for the appellant, the order passed by this Court shall stand vacated automatically.
I.A.No.9274/2013 for modification of order dated 28.7.2011 stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge A.Praj.