- (1.) IN this application the respondent -applicant has prayed for stay of proceedings in Execution Case No. 6/04. pending in the Court of the Munsif, Garhwa and for any the order for doing conscionable justice to the applicant. This application has been purportedly filed under Order 39 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the C. P. C. stating that this second appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree of 6th Additional District Judge, Palamu at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 33/95 whereby the plaintiff -respondent's suit for specific performance of contract has been decreed directi'1g the defendants -appellants to execute the sale deed in favour of the applicant on receiving the remaining consideration amount. It has been also held by learned lower Appellate Court that .the Sale Deed Nos. 2942 and 2943 dated 8.5.92 in favour of the defendant Nos. 3 & 4 (appellant Nos. 2 & 3 herein) are illegal and void. Against the said judgment and decree the instant second appeal has been preferred by the appellants. The appeal has been admitted by this Court by framing substantial question of law by order dated 1.10.99 and further proceedings in Execution Case No. 7/98 for execution of the decree passed in Title Appeal No. 33/95 has been stayed. The defendant -appellant No.1 subsequent to execution of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff to sell the property, had executed two sale deeds in respect of the suit property being Sale Deed Nos. 2942 & 2943 dated 8.5.92 in favour of the appellant Nos. 2 & 3. On the basis of the said sale deeds, the defendant Nos. 3 & 4 -appellant Nos. 2 & 3 filed two eviction suits. Eviction Suit No. 31/92 was filed against this respondent which was decreed. The respondent thereafter preferred Civil Revision No. 137/04 in this Court. By an order passed in the said civil revision, execution of Eviction Suit No. 37/92 has been stayed the appellant Nos. 2 & 3 thereafter filed another Title (Eviction) Suit No. 38/92 against one Suresh Pd. and the same was also decreed. The said appellants thereafter filed Execution Case No. 6/04. The respondent filed an objection against the execution of the decree which was passed on the basis of the sale deeds which nave already been declared null and void. But the said objection has been erroneously rejected by learned Court below holding that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and that the plaintiff applicant was not a party to the suit. It has been contended that since the decree for specific performance has beep. passed in favour of the respondent in respect of portion of the property covered which is the subject matter of this appeal and the sale deeds which were the basis of the decree in the Eviction Suit No. 38/92, the proceedings in Execution Case No. 6/04, pending in the Court of the Munsif, Garhwa is fit to be stayed in the interest of justice.
(2.) THE appellants contested the respondent's said application, by filing a rejoinder, contending, inter alia, that the application is wholly misconceived and not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. It has been stated that the property admittedly belonged to Premchand Keshri (appellant No.1 herein) who is the paramount owner of the suit property and the applicant has claimed specific performance of contract on the basis of his agreement with said Premchand Keshri. Though the suit has been decreed in favour of the respondent, yet the sale deed has not been executed in favour of the respondent conveying right, title and interest. The said decree in favour of the respondent is under challenge in the instant appeal. The appeal has been admitted and the proceeding for execution of the decree in favour of the respondent -applicant has been stayed by order dated 1.10.99. The respondent has thus acquired no right, title over the suit property. It has been further stated that the land which is the subject matter of the instant appeal appertains to Khata No. 246, Plot Nos. 480 and 488 measuring an area of 0.08.5 acres, which was transferred by registered sale deed Nos. 2942 and 2943 both dated 8.5.92 by Premchand Keshri (appellant No.1 herein) in favour of Madan Lal Keshri (appellant No.2) and Vinod Pd. Keshri (appellant No.3) each having an area of 0.04 ¼ " acres. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3, who had purchased the property for their use and occupation, had then filed Eviction Suit Nos. 37/92 and 38/92. The respondent was a tenant in a part of the building and open space consisting of three rooms, latrine, well etc. The Eviction Suit No. 37/92 was filed praying a decree for eviction against the respondent and another Eviction Suit No. 38/92 was filed praying decree for eviction against another tenant, namely, Suresh Prasad. Both Eviction suits were decreed. The respondent thereafter preferred civil revision being Civil Revision No. 137/04 and in the said civil revision, execution of the decree for eviction of the appellants has been stayed by this Court. However, in Eviction Suit No. 38/92, the suit was decreed against Suresh Pd. and the execution was levied in Execution Case No. 6/04. The said Suresh Pd. is not a party to this appeal and the respondent is not a party to the Eviction Suit No. 38/92/Execution Case No. 6/04, pending in the Court of the Munsif, Garhwa. Since in the Execution Case No. 6/04, the said Suresh Pd., who admittedly is a tenant in a different portion of the premises, is sought to be evicted, the respondent has filed this application praying stay of execution of the said decree against Suresh Pd. It has been stated that as the respondent/applicant is not a party to the said eviction suit, he has got no locus standi to seek any injunction and frustrate the decree of Eviction Suit No. 38/92 which cannot be permitted in law. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/applicant, pressing his application, submitted that though it is true that the respondent is not a party to the Eviction Suit No. 38/92, yet the decree for specific performance of contract is in respect of the suit property which also covers the subject matter of the Eviction Suit No. 38/92 and the sale deeds by which the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 claimed to have purchased the suit property having been declared illegal and void, the said appellants cannot be permitted to occupy a portion of the suit property under the cloak of execution of the decree in Eviction Suit No. 38/92 against another tenant. Learned counsel submitted that since the sale deeds have been declared as null and void, the said appellants cannot be permitted to occupy a portion of the suit property on the basis of the same and an order of stay of execution of the decree passed on the basis of the said sale deeds was warranted in the interest of justice and to protect the suit property which is the subject matter of this appeal from being alienated to any third person. Learned counsel submitted that if the concerned appellant is allowed to execute the decree of Eviction Suit No. 38/92, the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and shall be highly prejudiced. Learned counsel submitted that intervention of this Court is also required to prevent the apprehended multiplicity of the legal proceedings. He referred to and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1962 S.C. 527 as also the decisions reported in AIR 1938 Calcutta 371 and A.I.R. 1980 A.P 315 to fortify his contentions. Learned counsel submitted that even if the terms of the Order 39 Rule 1 C.PC. is not covered by the petitioners' application, this Court can issue appropriate order to stay the proceeding of the Execution Case No. 6/04 in the Court below in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, which is required in the circumstances of this case, for the ends of justice.
(3.) MR . V.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, on the other hand, seriously contested the respondent's application and submitted that though the respondent has got the decree for specific performance of contract and the Court below has directed the appellants to execute the sale deed in his favour, but the execution of the said decree has been stayed by this Court and the second appeal has been admitted by framing substantial questions of law, which are yet to be decided by this Court. Until and unless the sale deed is executed in favour of the respondent, he has got no right, title and possession over the land in question and the appellant No.1 is still the owner and title holder of the premises. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the purchasers from the appellant No. 1 by virtue of the registered sale deeds and unless they also execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent, the respondent shall not get any title to the suit land. The purchasers have thus stepped into the shoes of their vendor and the decree has been passed in their favour. The respondent is not a party to the said eviction suit and as such he has no locus standi to pray for stay of the execution of the eviction decree against the third party, namely, Suresh Pd. learned counsel submitted that the person who is not a party to the decree has got no right to obstruct the execution of the decree by an order of injunction. learned counsel relied on a decision in Patna Public School vs. Dr. Sharda Ranjan Pd. Sinha and Anr., reported in 1987 B.L.J.R 504. learned counsel submitted that the respondent -applicant has got no prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the execution of the decree and not in obstructing the same. He further submitted that since the respondent -applicant is not going to be dispossessed or evicted in any way, he is not entitled to pray for stay of execution of the decree passed in Eviction Suit No. 38/92 and this application is liable to be rejected.;