Gauhati High Court
Mrs. Sonu Sethia vs Md. Salim Ali And 4 Ors on 2 December, 2019
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010223922019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No : I.A.(Civil) 4102/2019
1:MRS. SONU SETHIA
W/O- DHANPAT RAJ SETHIA
P.O. SANTIPUR
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
1:MD. SALIM ALI AND 4 ORS.
S/O- LATE YASIN ALI
R/O- ATHGAON
S.C. ROAD
WARD NO. 19
GUWAHATI- 781001
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM.
2:IBRAHIM ALI
S/O- LATE YASIN ALI
R/O- ATHGAON
S.C. ROAD
WARD NO. 19
GUWAHATI- 781001
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM.
3:ISHAK ALI
S/O- LATE YASIN ALI
R/O- ATHGAON
S.C. ROAD
WARD NO. 19
GUWAHATI- 781001
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
Page No.# 2/3
ASSAM.
4:M/S. STYLISH CONCEPTS
REP. BY ITS PARTNERS
YAKUB PLAZA
S.C. ROAD
ATHGAON
GUWAHATI- 781001
KAMRUP(M)
GUWAHATI.
5:MR. JITENDAR GOEL
S/O- SRI PREM CHAND GOEL
BUNGLOW NO. 14
SECTOR-26
SIDDHI VINAYAK PRASTHA
PRADHIKARAN
NIGDI
PUNE- 411044.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A SATTAR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 02-12-2019 Heard Mr. J. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Z. Mukit, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
This is an application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC.
At the outset, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the applicant herein was the defendant No.3 in the suit, but her defence was that she is not a partner of M/S. Stylish Concepts. Accordingly, while denying her liability towards rent decreed against her, it is submitted that the applicant is not aggrieved with the decree for ejection passed against the proforma respondents No. 5 and 6 (i.e. defendants No.1 and 4 in the suit), and defendant No.2 in the suit.
Opposing this application, the learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3 Page No.# 3/3 has submitted that as a money decree has been passed against the applicant herein, as a pre-condition for grant of stay, the applicant may be asked to deposit a part of the decreetal amount towards security in connection with the connected appeal.
Considering the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and his projection that the applicant is not aggrieved by the decree for ejection passed against the applicant, this Court is inclined to stay the execution of money part of the decree against the applicant herein, without staying the decree for ejection dated 14.08.2019, passed against the defendants No.1, 2, 3 and 4 by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in T.S. No.137/2013.
However, the stay is granted subject to condition that within the period of 4 (four) weeks from today, the applicant shall submit a bond in writing before the learned trial court in connection with T.S. No.137/2013 (since disposed of), offering a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which will be subject to outcome of the appeal. If such a bond is filed, the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati shall record such receipt in the order-sheet of the suit.
It is made clear that if the applicant fails to submit such bond within the time allowed, this order shall not be a bar for enforcement of the decree.
In view of the above, agreed to by both sides, this application stand disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant