Iqbal Ahmad vs Satish Kumar

Lok Pal Singh, J

Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.05.2018 whereby the interim relief application of the petitioner has been rejected.

Brief facts, of the case, are that respondent/plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 339 of 2007, Satish Kumar vs. Iqbal Ahmad for rectification of sale deed dated 6.07.2006, to correct the name of the plaintiff. The learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 2.05.2015, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed to correct the name of the purchaser/plaintiff in the sale deed dated 06.07.2006.

Feeling Aggrieved, petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2015, Iqbal vs. Satish Kumar in the court of District Judge, Haridwar, which was within time. Petitioner also moved an application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with section 151 C.P.C. to stay the execution of the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2015 during the pendency of the appeal. The stay application, filed by the petitioner, has been rejected by the learned first appellate court on the ground that the judgment and order dated 2.05.2015 has already been implemented. Pursuant to the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the correction has already been made in the sale deed in the office of Sub Registrar, Haridwar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that appeal filed by the respondent was within time, and, on admission of appeal the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree should be stayed, further a letter has been issued to the Sub Registrar Haridwar to make correction in the sale deed and correction has been made in the sale deed on 06.05.2015, within four days of the judgment passed by the trial court, which is unjust and non sustainable in the eyes of the law.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that order has been implemented by the Sub Registrar, Haridwar, prior to filing of the regular appeal and the appellate court has rightly rejected the stay application filed by the petitioner.

I have gone through the impugned order passed by the court below. It is true that the learned trial court should not have wrote letter to the Sub Registrar to correct the name of the plaintiff/respondent in the sale deed before expiry of period of filing of the civil appeal. It is also settled position in law that after passing the decree, the trial court suo motu cannot issue any order to execute its decree, without there being any execution application. The trial court has committed illegality in issuing the letter. The learned appellate court has rejected the stay application on the ground that the order passed by the trial court has already been implemented.

It is also true that the trial court has illegally wrote the letter to correct the name of the plaintiff respondent and rights of the petitioner has been discarded by the trial court by issuing letter to the Sub Registrar, Haridwar to implement the decree, and further the order has been implemented. But, at this stage, this Court is of the view that what has been done is absolutely wrong, but, at the same time it cannot be undone at this stage, as there was no prayer by the petitioner to delete the correction made in the sale deed pursuant to the decree passed in the favour of the plaintiff respondent.

A perusal of the written statement would reveal that the petitioner has admitted the contents of paragraph no.1 of the plaint in his written statement. At this stage, no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioner. Since, no miscarriage of justice was done; I do not find any good ground to quash the impugned order. However, the correction made in the sale deed in the favour of the plaintiff respondent shall be subject to the final outcome of the appeal.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Civil appeal, arising out of suit no.339 of 2007 is pending since 2015. The appellate court is directed to make an endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment and order. The appellate court shall avoid unnecessary adjournment.

No order as to costs.