Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3962 (ALL)

Vandana Gupta v. Mukesh Babu

2016-12-08

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Prateek Kumar, counsel for the caveator-opposite parties. 2. The SCC Revision is directed against the order dated 19.11.2016 passed by the District Judge, Court No. 11, Aligarh in Execution Case No. 266 of 2016 whereby an objection under Section 47 CPC filed by the judgement debtor, the tenant revisionist, has been dismissed. 3. The submission before the Court below as also before this Court is that the suit was filed regarding a shop and a go-down. It was decreed but the order was modified in a revision by the High Court and the decree upheld as regards the shop but it was set aside as regards go-down. Till such time, the boundary of the shop is not clearly specified by the High Court, the decree cannot be executed. 4. This objection has been rejected by the Executing Court on the ground that boundary of the shop in question had been clearly spelt out by the tenant in his written statement and it is this very same boundary which is mentioned in the execution application. It was, therefore, held that there is no difficulty in executing the decree as the boundary of the shop in question stands admitted. 5. The second contention raised is that against the revisional order, an SLP filed before the Apex Court is pending. Even this aspect has been considered by the court below and has rightly been repelled on the ground that no interim order had been granted by the Apex Court. 6. It is settled law that mere filing of an appeal, revision etc. does not amount to stay of the order impugned therein. 7. Insofar as the third objection that excess amount has been deposited by the judgement debtor, even this, in my considered opinion, cannot be a ground of not executing decree especially since the landlord stated that it is open for the tenant to seek refund of any excess deposit and he has no objection to such refund. 8. In view of the what has been stated above, the order impugned suffers from no jurisdictional error warranting interference. 9. The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.