Case Note & Summary
The respondent-plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 164 of 2000 for partition and separate possession of agricultural lands and a house property against the petitioners-defendants. The suit was partly decreed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambajogai, on 14 July 2008. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2008 before the District Court, Beed, on 20 August 2008, and simultaneously filed an application for stay of execution of the decree. The learned District Judge-2, Ambajogai, rejected the stay application on 15 July 2009. The petitioners then invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing of the rejection order and for grant of stay. During hearing, the respondent-plaintiff’s counsel gave an undertaking that no execution proceedings would be initiated against the petitioners during the pendency of the appeal. However, the respondent expressed apprehension that the petitioners, who were in possession of the suit properties, might alienate the same or create third-party interests over the respondent’s undivided share. The High Court, after considering the submissions, found that the appeal had been pending since 2008 and needed to be expedited. To balance the equities and meet the ends of justice, the court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit properties till the disposal of the appeal and for fifteen days thereafter. Additionally, the District Judge-2 was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the writ. The petition was disposed of in these terms, making the Rule absolute, without expressly quashing the impugned order but effectively providing interim protection to both sides.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Relief in Appeal - Status Quo Order - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - In an appeal against a partition decree, where the stay application is rejected, the court may direct the parties to maintain status quo regarding suit properties to prevent alienation and protect the interests of both parties, while also accepting an undertaking from the decree-holder not to execute the decree. Held that such a direction balances the equities and is appropriate. (Paras 5-8) B) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Expeditious Disposal - Constitution of India, Article 227 - The High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, can direct the lower court to decide the pending appeal expeditiously when it has been pending since 2008. Held that the appeal be decided within six months. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of stay application in appeal against a partition decree warrants interference under Article 227, and the appropriate interim arrangement pending the appeal.
Final Decision
The writ petition was disposed of with directions: (i) The learned District Judge-2, Ambajogai, shall decide Regular Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2008 expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of writ; (ii) The parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit properties till the disposal of the said appeal and fifteen days thereafter. The respondent’s undertaking not to file execution proceedings during pendency of the appeal was accepted.
Law Points
- interim relief in partition suit appeal
- status quo direction to prevent alienation
- acceptance of undertaking not to execute decree
- expeditious disposal of appeal under Article 227
