Skip to content


Chet Ram and ors. Vs. Ram Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in64Ind.Cas.152
AppellantChet Ram and ors.
RespondentRam Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xlv, rule 13(d) - decree of high court--appeal to privy council--decree executed and possession obtained--proceedings in revenue court to eject judgment-debtor--high court, power of, to stay. - - moreover, it has been pointed out that after the delivery of possession the decree was struck off as being satisfied and the decree-holders got mutation of names effected......decreed the plaintiffs' claim in full on the 11th of march 1919. towards the end of that year execution proceedings were commenced and formal possession obtained in january of 1920. following on that delivery of possession, suits were instituted in the revenue court to eject the appellants to his majesty in council from certain sir and khudkasht lands. the applicant here prays that those proceedings may be stayed, be being willing to be put upon terms. he has not shown us, in our opinion that there is any special cause which differentiates this case from all those cases in which as the result of an appeal, or as the result of a decision in an original action, one man is dispossessed in favour of another. moreover, it has been pointed out that after the delivery of possession the.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application that further execution may be stayed in a matter which is now under appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit was an ordinary suit for possession of land, and a Bench of this Court decreed the plaintiffs' claim in full on the 11th of March 1919. Towards the end of that year execution proceedings were commenced and formal possession obtained in January of 1920. Following on that delivery of possession, suits were instituted in the Revenue Court to eject the appellants to His Majesty in Council from certain sir and khudkasht lands. The applicant here prays that those proceedings may be stayed, be being willing to be put upon terms. He has not shown us, in our opinion that there is any special cause which differentiates this case from all those cases in which as the result of an appeal, or as the result of a decision in an original action, one man is dispossessed in favour of another. Moreover, it has been pointed out that after the delivery of possession the decree was struck off as being satisfied and the decree-holders got mutation of names effected. In our view the proceedings in the Revenue Court do not really some within proceedings under the execution of the decree but are (sic) on the decree of the High Court and the fact that delivery of possession was obtained. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the matter has not been brought within Order XLV, Rule 13, Clause (d), and that the application must be and hereby is rejected with costs and fees on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //