Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad Vs. Smt. Jaimala
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.15611 of 1996.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.12513 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.1996 of the Allahabad High Court in C.R.No. 352 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.12513 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.1996 of the Allahabad High Court in C.R.No. 352 of 1995)
Petitioner: Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad
Respondent: Smt. Jaimala
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.15611 of 1996.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.12513 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.1996 of the Allahabad High Court in C.R.No. 352 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.12513 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.1996 of the Allahabad High Court in C.R.No. 352 of 1995)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & G.T.NANAVATI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 02, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. O.P.Rana, Senior Advocate and Mr. S.Kulshreshtha, Advocate with him for the Appellants.
Mr. Gopal Prasad, and Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocates for the Re-spondent.
Head Note:
EXECUTION OF DECREE
Stay granted – Held appellant having under threat of contempt executed sale deed in favour of respondent, the question of legality of execution inspite of stay order need not be gone into – However the payment to be made by respondent per sq. yard is the subject matter of the dispute in pending appeal before High Court and execution of sale deed will be subject to result in appeal – Exemplary cost of Rs. 25000 awarded against appellant are not warranted and are set aside.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Allahabad, made on May 10, 1996 in CR No.352 of 1995. It is not necessary to narrate all the facts relating to the controversy in execution. It is now not in dispute that against the decree of the trial Court, the appeal has been filed in the High Court. The appeal is now pending. When the respondent had taken out execution of the decree of the trial Court, the re-spondent had also filed another Revision No.56/95 and the High Court has granted stay on May 15, 1995 of the execution of the decree. Thereafter without knowledge, the learned counsel ap-pearing for the appellant, appears to have made a statement in the executing Court as well as in the High Court that no revision was filed against the order passed by the executing Court. As a consequence, a direction was given in the impugned order to enforce the decree and exemplary costs were awarded. However, the learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice that the Court has stayed the execution of the decree and the appellant have under threat of contempt executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent. In view of the fact that sale deed has already been registered in favour of the respondent in execution of the decree, we decline to go into the question of the legality of the execution, in spite of the order of stay granted by the High Court in the aforesaid revision. However, whether the respondent requires to pay at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq.yd. or at the rate of Rs.800/- per sq.yd. is the subject matter of the dispute in the pending appeal. Under these circumstances, the execution of the sale deed will be subject to the result in the appeal. Accordingly the imposition of the exemplary costs by the High Court for a sum of Rs.25,000/- is not warranted on the facts in this case and is accordingly set aside.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Allahabad, made on May 10, 1996 in CR No.352 of 1995. It is not necessary to narrate all the facts relating to the controversy in execution. It is now not in dispute that against the decree of the trial Court, the appeal has been filed in the High Court. The appeal is now pending. When the respondent had taken out execution of the decree of the trial Court, the re-spondent had also filed another Revision No.56/95 and the High Court has granted stay on May 15, 1995 of the execution of the decree. Thereafter without knowledge, the learned counsel ap-pearing for the appellant, appears to have made a statement in the executing Court as well as in the High Court that no revision was filed against the order passed by the executing Court. As a consequence, a direction was given in the impugned order to enforce the decree and exemplary costs were awarded. However, the learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice that the Court has stayed the execution of the decree and the appellant have under threat of contempt executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent. In view of the fact that sale deed has already been registered in favour of the respondent in execution of the decree, we decline to go into the question of the legality of the execution, in spite of the order of stay granted by the High Court in the aforesaid revision. However, whether the respondent requires to pay at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq.yd. or at the rate of Rs.800/- per sq.yd. is the subject matter of the dispute in the pending appeal. Under these circumstances, the execution of the sale deed will be subject to the result in the appeal. Accordingly the imposition of the exemplary costs by the High Court for a sum of Rs.25,000/- is not warranted on the facts in this case and is accordingly set aside.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No costs.
