Full Judgment
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the ex-order and fair order, dated 06.11.2015 in E.A.No.25 of 2015 in E.P.No.76 of 2014, in O.S.No.33 of 2010 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti.)
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed, against the ex-order and fair order, dated 06.11.2015 in E.A.No.25 of 2015 in E.P.No.76 of 2014, in O.S.No.33 of 2010 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti.
2. The petitioners are the defendants in the Suit. The respondents/plaintiffs filed Suit in O.S.No.33 of 2010, for declaration and recovery of possession. The Suit was decreed on 27.08.2014, directing the petitioners to deliver the suit property. The respondents/plaintiffs filed E.P.No.76 of 2014 for execution of decree. The petitioners filed E.A.No.25 of 2015 for stay of further proceedings in E.P.No.76 of 2014 for the period of six months. According to the petitioners, they have already filed A.S.No.27 of 2015, before the Sub Court, Madurai, against the judgment and decree, dated 27.08.2014, passed in O.S.No.33 of 2010, The petitioners also filed I.A.No.176 of 2015 in first appeal, for stay of execution proceedings and the same is also pending. Since, both the first appeal and application for stay are pending, they prayed for stay of further proceedings in the E.P.No.76 of 2014.
3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed counter affidavit and resisted the same. According to the respondents, they have not received any notice from the Sub Court, Madurai, in the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioners have not produced any stay order granted by the appellate court. The learned Judge considering the facts and materials on record and as per Order 21 Rule 26 of C.P.C., dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. Against the said order present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Judge did not properly appreciate Order 21 Rule 26 of C.P.C. The learned Judge ought to have stayed the E.P.No.76 of 2014, in view of the pendency of the appeal in A.S.No.27 of 2015 filed by the petitioners. The learned Judge failed to note that while the pendency of the first appeal, the decree of the lower Court cannot be executed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
6. From the records it is seen that the petitioners herein have suffered by decree in O.S.No.33 of 2010. The respondents filed E.P.No.76 of 2014 for recovery of possession. The petitioners are seeking stay of the execution proceedings on the ground that they already filed first appeal and stay petition for stay of further proceedings of the execution petition, on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai. The petitioners have not produced any stay order by the appellate court. The petitioners entered appearance in the execution petition on 09.01.2015 and they did not file their counter till 31.07.2015. Subsequently they filed E.A.No.25 of 2015 for stay of the execution petition for six months. The said period of six months was already over. As per Order 21 Rule 26, on sufficient cause being shown, the execution proceedings can be stayed for reasonable time. In the present case, the petitioners have not shown any sufficient reason for stay of execution proceedings. The pendency of the appeal suit will not automatically stay of the decree of the Court below. The learned Judge considering all these aspects and materials on records in proper perspective, dismissed the application. There is no irregularity or illegality in the said order, warranting interference of this Court. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.