- (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseehced to quash and set-aside the order dated 20th February, 2009, whereby the learned District Judge, Baran dismissed the application seeking stay in the execution of judgment and decree dated 22nd July, 2008.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is revealed that the plaintiff-respondent no.2 Ram Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,08,000/- against the petitioner-defendant in the Court of District Judge, Baran. After the completion of trial of suit, the District Judge decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 22nd July, 2008, wherein it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover Rs. 1,50,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 21st December, 2003 to 20th November, 2005 and thereafter @ 9% rate of interest per annum till its realization. Aggrieved with the judgment and decree, the petitioner-defendant filed an appeal in the High court, which has been pending for its decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that it was true that he had impugned the judgment and decree by way of filing an appeal in the High Court, but since the case of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act and filed an application for granting the stay on the execution of decree, the learned executing court did not consider this aspect and dismissed the application arbitrarily. In support of his case, he has cited the judgment in the case of Ratan Chand and others Versus Nathu Dan and Others reported in Indian Law Reports (1970) Raj. 831 as also Karansee Versus Sonsingh reported in RLW 1963 page 406. E Converso, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper. He further contended that the petitioner-defendant filed an appeal together with the stay application, wherein the appellate court stayed the execution proceedings provided that the petitioner-defendant deposits Rs. 1,50,000/- in the trial court towards the satisfaction of decree. Learned executing court dismissed the stay application on the ground that he did not comply with the order of the High Court nor deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- with the trial court, hence the proceedings of execution could not be stayed. It is relevant to record that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to upset the pure findings of fact. It is also a settled proposition of law that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution can be invoked only when the impugned order is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. In the case on hand, the impugned order is found to be just and apt and to my view, it does not warrant any intervention.
(3.) THE defendant-petitioner filed the stay application together with the appeal in the High Court and the High Court categorically observed that the execution proceedings would remain stayed provided that he deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- with the executing court towards the satisfaction of the decree. When the stay application against the judgment and decree had already been filed by the petitioner-defendant and the order was already passed by the High Court, the petitioner-defendant cannot be permitted to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. On merits too, the impugned order is not found to be unjust and improper. So far as the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they do not hold good in the facts and circumstances of the case. THE fact is that the instant writ petition is found to be totally frivolous and vexatious and it is found that the petitioner-defendant has endeavoured to abuse the process of court. THE writ petition being totally devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed outrightly. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the application filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution does not survive, and that stands disposed of accordingly. ;