Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered the effect of a stay of execution on a time-bound direction to deposit purchase money in a preemption decree. The decree-holder had obtained a decree for possession of land on deposit of purchase money by a certain date, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. Pending the judgment-debtor's second appeal, the High Court stayed execution, and the decree-holder deposited the amount a few days after the due date, citing illness. After the second appeal was dismissed, the decree-holder obtained possession. The judgment-debtors sought restitution, arguing default. The executing court and first appellate court ruled in favor of the decree-holder, but the High Court reversed, holding there was default. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the stay of execution extended the time for deposit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Stay of Execution - Effect on Time-bound Deposit - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 20 Rule 14 – In a preemption suit, the decree directed deposit of purchase money by a specified date with a default clause. Pending appeal, the High Court stayed execution. The deposit was made after the due date. – The Executing Court and District Court held the stay prevented compliance and the decree holder was entitled to deposit after dismissal of appeal, thus no default. The High Court reversed, finding default due to late deposit. – Held that [Not mentioned]
Issue of Consideration
Whether the stay of execution granted by the High Court extended the time for depositing the purchase money as per the decree, and whether the late deposit constituted default.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Order XX Rule 14 CPC regarding deposit time extension due to stay of execution
Case Details
Ramaswami, V., Shah, J.C., Grover, A.N.
1970 AIR 750, 1969 SCR (2) 328
Dattaraya s/o Keshav Tawalay
Shaikh Mahboob Shaikh Ali & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Execution proceeding regarding default in deposit of purchase money under a conditional preemption decree.
Remedy Sought
The judgment-debtors (respondents) sought restitution of property on the ground that the decree-holder (appellant) defaulted in depositing the purchase money by the due date.
Filing Reason
The decree-holder deposited the purchase money three days after the date fixed by the appellate decree, and the High Court had stayed execution before the due date.
Previous Decisions
Executing Court rejected restitution; District Court affirmed; High Court reversed, finding default and allowing restitution.
Issues
Whether the stay of execution of the decree by the High Court extended the time for depositing the purchase money.
Whether the deposit of purchase money three days after the due date constituted default in terms of the decree, which provided for dismissal of the suit on default.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant contended that the stay order prevented him from acting in accordance with the terms of the lower appellate court’s decree, and that after dismissal of the second appeal, he was entitled to a fresh starting point for deposit from the date of the High Court’s decree.
The respondents argued that the appellant had defaulted in depositing the purchase money by the date fixed in the decree and that the stay of execution did not extend the time for deposit.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant deposited the purchase price 3 days after the date fixed stating that he could not deposit in time as he fell ill.
The appellant contended that the stay order made by the High Court in the second appeal prevented him from acting in accordance with the terms of the lower appellate court’s decree, and in any case the High Court had dismissed the second appeal and the decree holder would get by necessary implication a fresh starting point for depositing the purchase amount from the date of the High Court’s decree.
Procedural History
The appellant obtained a decree for possession in a pre-emption suit. The respondents’ appeal to the District Court was dismissed, and the District Court directed the appellant to deposit purchase money by a certain date, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. The respondents filed a second appeal in the High Court, which stayed execution before the deposit deadline. The appellant deposited the money three days late, citing illness. The High Court later dismissed the second appeal, and the appellant obtained possession. The respondents then applied for restitution, arguing default. The Executing Court rejected the claim, and the District Court affirmed this on appeal. The High Court, in appeal, reversed, holding that the appellant had defaulted. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 20 Rule 14
