- (1.) 2/04.05.2012: Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the impugned order dated 27.3.2012.
(2.) IT appears that the present petitioners have preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 50 of 2003 before the learned Additional District Judge, Tenughat, Bokaro and during pendency of the said appeal, application for stay against the execution was moved by the present petitioners as the Execution Case No. 2 of 2011 was filed by the original plaintiff (respondents herein). Learned senior counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court to the order sheet of the Title Appeal No. 50 of 2003. On perusal of the said order sheet, it appears that the learned counsel for the appellants has remained present almost on all the occasions. The matter was delayed on account of respondents because they moved an application for amendment to the plaint and thereafter, the matter could not be taken up and heard for non-availability of presiding officer. The presiding officer was transferred to some other Court. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are interested in proceeding further with the appeal. Since the execution petition has been filed in the year 2011 vide Execution Case No. 2 of 2011, petitioners were compelled to move the court-below in an appeal proceeding with a prayer for stay against the execution. I find substance in the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners because execution case is numbered as Execution Case No. 2 of 2011, meaning thereby filed in the year 2011, so prior to that, there was no question or occasion to approach the court with a prayer to stay execution proceeding. On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that the delay was not caused on account of present petitioners and therefore, the petitioners are required to be protected during pendency of appeal, where the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, if the interim relief against execution will not be provided till the disposal of the appeal, the appeal will become infructuous. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is desirable to stay the execution proceedings till the outcome of the appeal. Under the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that this matter is required to be disposed of at the initial stage of admission without calling upon other side by issuance of notice with a direction to the court-below that Title Appeal No. 50 of 2003 be heard and decided within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the appellants will co-operate in the appellate proceeding. Accordingly, present petitioners are hereby directed to co- operate in the appellate proceeding so that the appeal can be proceeded further without further delay and can be heard and decided within stipulated time.
(3.) IN view of the above, present petition stands disposed of with the direction to the court-below that appeal be heard and decided within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Till then, proceeding of Execution Case No. 2 of 2011 shall remain stayed.;