i'll^N." / S^^m^ i^:^yf, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227t N0. 3831 OF 2011 PBTITINBR Defendant Judgtiient Debtor RB8PONDBNT Plaiatiff Decree Holder VBRSU8 Sampat Smgh, S/o Budhram Kalar, aged about 67 years, Resident of ViUagp Soiiabal, Tahsil Itoiidagacm, District Bastar (C.G.). Jhifku Ram, S/o Baisakiiu Kalar, aged about 79 years, Resident of ViUage Sonabal, Tahsil Kondagaon, Distdct Bastar (C.G,). ^' WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OF THB CONSTITimON OP INDIA. (1SHB :Hoa*ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri R.N. Jha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the respond@nt. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 18/07/2011) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged fhe legaUty and propriely of fhe order dated 6/7/2011 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Kondagaon, District Bastar (C.G.) m Execution Case No. 3/2011 whereby Coiirt below has disimssed fhe application filed for stay of executlon on behalf of the present petitioner after dismissal of second appe^l by fhis Court in Second Appeal No. 47/2011 vide judgment dated 20/6/201l. 2. Leamed counsel for the parties are heard. 3. Learaed counsel for the petitioner subinits that trial Court is also haviiig inherent power to stay fhe proceeding even after dismissal of second ap^al { for enablmg the party to approach beforc the Suprenie Court aad to file Special Leave Petition. 4. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner placed reMance ia fhe matter of Gtoase BI, itetitiofler v. SaUma Bi* Resoondent reported in AIR 1974 MAIHIA8 220 in which High Court of Madras has held that even ia case of time barred appeal High Coiirt is haviag iaherent power to graiit stay before disixiissing of (he appeal. 5. Learaed coiinsel for fhe petitioner furfher placed reliance in fhe matter of Ukusaaa Sineli and othCTs* petltlonCTS v. Union of Indla* Respondent reported in AIR 1987 Manlour 38 ia which High Court of Manipur has heM that High Court is haviag iahercnt power to stay fhe pnx^eedmg m pendency ofappUcation for leave to appeal to fhe Supreme Court, 6. Leamed counsel for fhe rcspondent opposed fhe petition and submits that present petitfoner has lost his case before fhe tdal Court, Firat AppeUate Court and beforc Second AppeUate Court fhereafter instead of comptying decree he has filed fhe appUcation for stay before the trial Court aad ia case of grievances against judgiaent passed by fhis Court petitioner is at liberty to approach before the Supreme Court. 7, After dismissal of second appeal torial Court was having no optlon except to execute the decree at the instaMce of decree holder ia case of aaay grievaaces ^ainst fhe judgment passed ia second appeal, petitioner is at Uberty to approach before fhe Apex Court but iastead of approaehmg Apex Ccnirt after passing of judgment dated 20/6/2011 petitioxier has filed aforesaid appUcation before the Trial Court, Whfle dismissmg fhe appMcation trial Couirt has not conimltted aay illegaUty requiring any iaterfercnce iii exercise of supervisoxy junsdiction. Case of Gouse Bi te Ul^usiuia Sia^li aad others (Supra^ are distmguishable on the ground of facts aad jurisdictioiL Consequentiy, petition is Uable to be dismissed and is hercby dfemissed. 8, Ofher mterim appUcations are also dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^