Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1543 (RAJ)

Badri Son Of Shri Balu v. Nirmala Devi

2022-05-12

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2022
ORDER 1. The unsuccessful judgment-debtor has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 12.04.2022 whereby, an application under Section 10 CPC for staying the execution proceedings, has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Kekri, District Ajmer. 2. The facts in brief are that in an execution petition arising out of the decree dated 07.12.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kekri in Civil Suit No.88/2011 filed by the respondents-decree holder for mandatory and permanent injunction, the judgmentdebtor moved an application under Section 10 CPC stating therein that another execution petition No.2/2006 is pending between the same parties for execution of the decree dated 09.12.2005 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kekri, District Ajmer in Civil Suit No.25/2004 filed by the respondents No.3 & 4 against him and hence, the instant execution proceeding be stayed. The application has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 12.04.2022, which is subjectmatter of execution. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the subject-matter of execution in both the decrees is common, the learned Executing Court erred in dismissing the application. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. The learned Executing Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 CPC on the premise that both the execution petitions arise out of decree passed by the competent Court under proceedings of altogether different nature. The execution petition No.2/2006 arises out of a decree dated 09.12.2005 for recovery of the amount advanced by the respondents No.3 & 4 under an agreement to sell to the petitioner; whereas, the instant execution petition arises out of a decree for mandatory and permanent injunction granted in favour of the respondents No.1 to 4. Merely because the subject matter of execution is common, provision of Section 10 CPC are not attracted. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy that the order dated 12.04.2022 suffers from any patent jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction. 6. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.