Roop Kishore Jain vs Kalyan Mal Jain

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff-respondent challenging the order dt. 20.9.13 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as ''the appellate court'') in Civil Regular Appeal No. 462/09, whereby the appellate Court has stayed the execution of the judgment-decree dt. 5.9.05 passed in the Civil Suit No. 292/92. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. P.S. Sharma for the petitioner that the appellate Court has stayed the execution of the decree after 8 years of filing of the appeal only on the ground that the counsel respondents had sought time to argue the appeal. He states that the learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent shall argue the appeal itself on the date that may be fixed by the appellate Court and will not seek any adjournment.

The learned counsel Mr. Amit Jindal for the respondents, however has submitted that the arguments on behalf of the respondents-appellants are already over and the counsel for the petitioner had sought time and, therefore, the execution was stayed by the appellate Court. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the appellate Court, it appears that the appellate Court has granted the stay against the execution of the decree after 8 years of the filing of the appeal only on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner had sought time to argue the appeal. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the arguments will be made on behalf of the petitioner on the date fixed by the appellate Court, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is set aside. The counsel for the petitioner-respondent shall argue the appeal on the date that may be fixed by the appellate Court and shall not ask for any adjournment. With these directions, the petition is allowed.