Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Luis Antonio Romualdo Jesus de Maria Jose De Abreu (since deceased, represented by his LR Maria Do Ceu Abreu), obtained a judgment and decree dated 21/08/2008 from the Senior Civil Judge, Panaji, declaring him and his siblings owners of a suit property and directing the respondents to give quiet and vacant possession. The petitioner filed execution proceedings on 29/09/2016. On 27/06/2017, the respondents filed an appeal against the decree along with an application for condonation of delay of 9 years. The appeal was registered and allotted to the Court of District Judge-I, Panaji. On 16/01/2018, the matter was fixed for appearance of the petitioner's siblings. On 27/02/2018, the District Judge passed an order staying the execution proceedings. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court held that the application for condonation of delay could not be filed before the appeal was registered, and the appellate court could not stay execution without hearing the decree-holder. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the District Judge was directed to proceed with the delay condonation application in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Stay of Execution - Condonation of Delay - The petitioner obtained a decree for possession in 2008; respondents filed an appeal in 2017 with a delay condonation application. The District Judge, without registering the appeal, granted stay of execution. The High Court held that an application for condonation of delay cannot be filed before the appeal is registered, and the appellate court cannot stay execution without hearing the decree-holder. The impugned order was quashed. (Paras 4-10) B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct an order passed by the District Judge which was without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Judge could entertain an application for condonation of delay and grant stay of execution proceedings when the appeal itself was not yet registered and the decree-holder was not heard.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 14/02/2018 passed by the District Judge-I, Panaji is quashed and set aside. The District Judge is directed to proceed with the delay condonation application in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay application cannot be filed before appeal is registered
- Appellate court cannot stay execution proceedings without hearing decree-holder
- Article 227 jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional errors
