Sukhchain Singh vs P.S.E.B.

Rajan Gupta, J.—Present revision is directed against the order passed by the executing court whereby it has declined to stay the execution proceedings pending before it. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. He submits that respondent filed execution on the basis of ex-parte decree. It concealed certain facts from the executing court. Thus impugned order is unsustainable.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the plea. He submits that there being decree in favour of respondent-board, they were entitled to file the execution proceedings. Petitioner could only avail appropriate remedy for setting aside the decree.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent-board filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 99321/- against defendant-petitioner. Suit was decreed ex-parte on 25.7.2005. On the basis of decree, execution petition was filed by the board in the executing court at Jagraon. During the pendency of proceedings, an application was moved by the petitioner for staying the execution proceedings. Order passed by the board was challenged by the petitioner before the consumer court as well as by filing application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. Prayer for stay of proceedings has been rejected by the court below observing that application for staying its own proceedings is misconceived. I find no legal infirmity with the order. In case, petitioner has availed remedy under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, he could make a prayer for stay of the ex-parte decree. Application filed before the executing court for staying its own proceedings is misconceived. I thus see no ground to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.