- (1.) THIS is an application for stay of all further proceedings in Title Execution case No. 177 of 1955 of the Court of the Second Munsif. Alipore. The defendant appellant is the petitioner before me. Against him a decree for ejectment from certain premises was obtained by the plaintiff respondent opposite party. Thereupon the defendant preferred a second anneal to this court which is numbered as S. A 1388 of 1955. In the meantime, the plaintiff respondent started an execution case in Title Execution Case No 177of 1955 in the Court of the Second Additional Munsif at Alipore for enforcement of the decree for ejectment. The defendant petitioner applied to this Court for stay of execution of that decree and for stay of all further proceedings in the said execution case and obtained a Rule from this Court namely Civil Rule No. 2730 (s) 55 On 8-12-55, by consent of parties that Rule was made absolute by Lahiri, J on certain terms. Some of the said terms are reproduced below:- " (b) If within that period the petitioner deposits in the Trial Court a sum of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the credit of the decree holder opposite party, the execution will remain stayed during the pendency of the second Appeal. (c) Without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the appeal the petitioner will go on depositing Rs 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) from month to month within the 15th day of the following month till the disposal of the second appeal pending in this Court. (e) On breach of any of the conditions this Rule will stand discharged with costs. . . . . . . . "
(2.) IT appears that in terms of the above order the defendant petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1100/- in the trial Court including initial deposit of Rs. 1000/- as well as Rs. 100/- towards rent for the month of December, 1955 This deposit was made through his pleader Sri Sachindra Nath Roy. It was detected latter on that deposits of rent for the months of October and November, 1957 as well as for the months of April, July and September, 1958 were not made. The explanation given by the petitioner in regard to this matter is that the requisite sums of money were made over by him to the lawyer concerned in strict compliance with the order of this Court but the latter somehow did not make the necessary deposits in court and in support of this case a verified petition filed by the lawyer concerned in the lower Court is relied upon. The relevant portion of that verified petition is as follows:- "that the judgment-debtor did give to me Rs. 100/- in each of the months of October and November, 1957 and. April, July and September, 1958 with strict instructions to deposit the same in your honors Court before the 15th of each month, but unfortunately I failed to deposit the same in Court. I, therefore, pray 'that the judgment-debtor may not be penalised for my laches and negligence. "
(3.) IT was argued on behalf of the defendant petitioner that so far as he is concerned, he was not to blame in any way and it was the lawyer concerned who after all is an officer of the Court who was directly responsible for breach of the conditions which had been imposed by this Court in its order dated the 8-12-55 at the time when execution was stayed conditionally.;