Union of India vs Seth Jugaldass Generiwala Charitable Trust

Alok Sharma, J.—Vide order dt. 29.11.2011 this court inter alia stayed the execution of judgment and decree dt. 4.5.2011 on the condition that the appellant shall pay Rs. 1000/- per month w.e.f. 1.12.2011 to respondents as rent during the pendency of appeal. It was clarified that if the appellants were to make default in payment of Rs. 1000/- per month effective 1.12.2011 for three months consecutively the stay would stand vacated automatically without any order of this court. It appears that thereafter the appellants after having deposited the rent Rs. 1000/- per month for some months, filed an application for recalling the conditional order dt. 29.11.2011 passed by this court. That application was however dismissed on 17.4.2012. But no rent was deposited for a period of 16 months till 3.7.2013.

This second stay application has now been filed for staying the proceedings of the execution petition No. 1/2013 filed by the respondents in the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Sikar for execution of the judgment and decree dt. 4.5.2011 in view of the fact that the conditional stay order 29.11.2011 stood vacated following the default for over three months consecutively in payment of rent Rs. 1000/- per month in terms of the conditional order dt. 29.11.2011 passed by this court. It was submitted that the default was occasioned owing to clerical default and on the said matter coming to the notice all arrears have been paid.

Learned counsel for the respondents--plaintiffs submits that the ground for non deposit of rent for over three months consecutively is absolutely false. He submitted that an application was moved by the appellants for modify/recall of the conditional order dt. 29.11.2011, which was dismissed on 17.4.2012. This counsel submitted is indicative of the desire of the appellants not to comply with the conditional stay order dt. 29.11.2011 passed by this court. It is submitted that the conditional order dt. 29.11.2011 passed by this court having been vacated on its own steam, it was for the appellants to move an application for modification of the order dt. 29-11-2011 for variations of the conditions imposed therein, instead of moving this second stay application. This second stay application has been moved only subsequent to filing execution petition before the trial court for execution of the judgment and decree dt. 4.5.2011. It is also submitted that the appellants are chronic defaulters.

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

In my considered opinion, the appellants being in breach of conditional stay order dt. 29.11.2011 passed by this court deserve no benefit of this discretion of this court on their second application. Further, the 16 months default does not appear innocent or accidental, for the reason that the appellants themselves had moved an application for modification/recall of the conditional order dt. 29.11.2011, which application was dismissed on 17.4.2012. That application was reflective of the intent of the appellants to not comply with the conditional order dt. 29.11.2011 passed by this court. The appellants have defaulted not for a month or two but for 16 months and the subsequent deposit following the filing of the execution application is of no avail to them. Orders of the court have to be respected and adhered to if Court proceedings are not to be reduced to mere side-show and of no effect.

In these circumstances of the case, I am of the view that propriety would not served nor is it in the interest of justice and dignity of the Court if stay order on second stay application were to be passed. Such order would fundamentally be against the grain of the conditional stay order dt. 29.11.2011 passed by this Court, which has been vacated for non compliance with its conditionalities. Consequently, there is no force in the second stay application and the same is dismissed.