1. Article 227 – Supervisory jurisdiction – Limited interference
In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court will not interfere with execution proceedings unless there is manifest illegality or jurisdictional error.
(Paras 4–5)
2. Execution – Order XXI Rule 29 CPC – Stay of execution
Stay of execution under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC cannot be granted merely because separate suits or appeals are stated to be pending, unless such proceedings directly bar execution or are accompanied by a subsisting order of stay.
(Paras 2, 5, 7)
3. Execution proceedings – Long pendency – Conduct of judgment-debtor
Where execution proceedings are pending for nearly two decades, and the judgment-debtor has taken no effective steps to resolve alleged hardships, the plea for further stay lacks merit.
(Para 6)
4. Execution – Subsequent suits – Distinct cause of action
Issues involved in subsequently filed suits, even if relating to the same property, may be distinct and separate from execution proceedings arising out of a final decree.
(Para 5)
5. Appeals filed – No admission or stay
Mere filing of appeals against decrees, without admission or grant of stay, does not affect the enforceability of the decree or justify stay of execution.
(Para 7)
6. Humanitarian grounds – Orphanage – Repeated plea
Humanitarian pleas such as existence of an orphanage on the suit property, when repeatedly raised and earlier negatived by courts, cannot be used indefinitely to stall execution.
(Paras 2, 6)
7. Civil Revision – Infructuous proceedings
When no effective relief survives for adjudication due to subsequent events and absence of any subsisting legal bar, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.
(Paras 7–8)
ANALYSIS
Nature of the Proceedings
The Civil Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.11.2021 passed in E.A.No.178 of 2020 in E.P.No.5 of 2007 arising out of O.S.No.15 of 2000.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, as judgment-debtor, sought to challenge the refusal of stay of execution proceedings.
Grounds Raised by the State
The State relied upon:
-
Pendency of O.S.Nos.249, 250 and 251 of 2018,
-
Alleged existence of an orphanage housing more than 132 / 200 orphans on the suit schedule property,
-
Filing of appeals in A.S.(Sr) Nos.1265, 1281 and 1286 of 2026 against decrees dated 01.07.2025.
Findings of the High Court
The Court noted:
-
Execution pending since 2007 – nearly 20 years had elapsed without effective resolution.
-
The State had:
-
Approached the High Court,
-
Approached the Supreme Court by SLP,
-
Filed Review and Curative Petitions, all of which were rejected. (Para 5)
-
-
The plea regarding the orphanage was not new and had been repeatedly rejected earlier. (Para 6)
-
Although appeals were stated to have been filed:
-
No appeal was admitted, and
-
No interim stay was granted by any appellate court. (Para 7)
-
Scope of Interference under Article 227
The Court consciously refrained from re-examining merits and confined itself to the supervisory scope, holding that no jurisdictional error or perversity was shown in the order of the executing court.
Reason for Dismissal
Since:
-
The decrees in other suits were operative,
-
No stay was in force,
-
Execution proceedings were unduly delayed,
-
No effective relief survived,
the Civil Revision Petition was found devoid of merit and rendered infructuous.
RATIO DECIDENDI
In execution proceedings, mere pendency of subsequent suits or filing of appeals, without admission or grant of stay, does not justify stay of execution under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC; where execution has remained pending for an inordinate period and humanitarian pleas have been repeatedly negatived, a civil revision under Article 227 challenging refusal of stay is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.
No comments:
Post a Comment