PUJARI SUBBAIAH Vs. LAKKAPPANAVARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against tie order dated 21st August 1981 passed by the learned Munsiff, Pavagada, in Exn. No. 29 of 1980 rejecting an application filed under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) The case of the petitioner-judgment debtor is that he has filed a suit O. S. No. 16 of 1980 for specific performance of an agreement to sell executed by the son of the decree holder to which, the decree-holder has also been made a party; therefore pending disposal of that suit, the execution in question which relates to the money decree obtained by the respondent against the petitioner be stayed under Order 21 Rule 2.9 of the Cod . The learned Munsiff has rejected the aforesaid application holding that the said suit has nothing to do with the decree' under execution and it does not have any bearing on it.

(3.) It is contended that Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code, does not provide that the suit referred to therein must be one having a bearing on the decree in execution. No doubt, the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code, do not state in clear terms that the suit must have a bearing on the decree under execution in some manner or the other, but that does not mean that the suit referred to in the said Rule includes a suit which does not have any bearing whatsoever on the decree under execution. If that be so, no purpose whatsoever is served by staying the execution on the ground that a suit is pending between the parties even if such a suit has no bearing whatsoever on the decree under execution. If this contention is accepted, the decree holder will be, unnecessarily and without any justification, prevented from securing the fruits of the decree. One of the objects of Rule 29 of Order 21 of the Code, is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to enable the judgment-debtor to adjust his money claim made in the pending suit against the decree holder of a money decree, so that he (the judgment debtor) need not take out execution of the decree to be passed in the pending suit instituted by him against a decree holder. The provision is also intended to prevent the judgment debtor from being compelled, to satisfy the amount due under the decree which can very well be adjusted to satisfy the claim for money made in the pending suit by the Judgment debtor against the decree-holder if the pending suit results in a decree in favour of the judgment debtor. Therefore, the power under Rule 29 of Order 21 of the Code, can be exercised only if the decree that is going to be passed in the pending suit is likely to have a bearing on the decree under execution. The exercise of power undsr this Rule is also discretionary and it is to be exercised judicially keeping in view that the party, who has obatined a valid decree and who has got a right to execute the same and to secure the fruits of it, should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree unless good cause is shown and that is possible if the decree that is going to be passed in a pending suit is likely to have a bearing on the decree under execution, such as adjustment of claim of the judgment debtor in a pending suit, and the decree under execution itself having been challenged in a pending suit which is likely to result in setting aside the decree under execution etc.