^ IN HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (^?-) N0. -^lS'S OF 2009 PETITIONER (Judgment-debtor/ defendant No.2) ^flSSS» ^/'^sfl wy9f RESPON&ENTS (Plaintiff/&ecree .holder) . ^?--> ^ '2^^y^^ •?,''.'• '^-f pfes'^'11''^..!.."- lia'-'3'"" befendant No.2 Vs gh^ttiS'yOt {^ Bhondu 6upta (wrongly described as Bhupendra by the plaintiff), son of 'Shri Ramdev Gupta, aged about 60 years, resident of Surunanak Chowk, Torwa, Bilaspur (C6) 1. Ghanshyam Rajak, son of Late Ramlal Rajak, aged about 45 years, resident of Surunanak Chowk, Torwa, Bilaspur, 2. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Bilaspur. PETITION UNbER ARTICLE .i— >/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IN&IA •A-/'; ^ mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'Me Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition 1227) No. 5153/2009 PETITIONER : Bhupendra @ Bhondu Gupta Versus RESPONDENTS : Ghanshyam Rajak and anotiier Appearance: Shri Kshitiz Shanna, counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor. Shri DashraA Prajapati, counsel for respondentNo.l/plaintiff. Shri Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrTtmON OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (29.03.2011) The 3 Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur graated an ex-parte decree in favour ofplamtiff/respondent No.l on 31/03/2008 inter-alia directing that tiie defendant shall remove the subject construction within two mdnths and if the defendant fails to do so, the plaintifif shall be entitled to get it removed ofhis owa with the assistance of concemed autiiorities and the cost thereof shall be recovered from the defendant. (2) The judgment debtor thereafter preferred an applicatioa under Order 9 Rule 13 ofCPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree. In the said MJC proceeding his prayer for stay ofthe execution was granted on 9/09/2008, however on application by the decree holder the Executing Court continued the execution and in course of the said execution proceedings the impugned order dated 6/07^009 has been ?3atc' '^•'w'" ' •'"•• "'^. '^S^ u»ua ^ ,^s^ -2- ^ passed inter-alia holding that in view of the fact that tiie earlier interim order datsd 15/09/2008 was operative only till farther orders and there is no stay order by any Appellate Court, the execution can not be stayed. (3) Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that once having stayed the execution till fiirther orders, the leamed Executing Court has wrongly constroed the effect and operation ofits own order to hold that Ifaere is no interim order in favour ofthe judgment debtor staying execution ofthejudgment and decree. (4) Shri Prajapati leamed counsel for the decree holder/respondent No.l has supported Ihe interim order on submission tfaat no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted in the facts and circumstances ofthe case. (5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documCTits annexed with the writ petition particularly the order dated 9/09/2008 in M.J.C. No. 9/2008, Ifais Court is ofthe considered opinion that once the execution ofthe ex-parte judgment and decree has been stayed by the M.J.C. Court, tfae Executing Court eannot proceed with the execution on the ground that the M.J.C. Court had granted interim order only till further orders. Grant of interim order till further orders would mean that the said order shall continue unless '^y it is varied, modified or vacated on farther dates of hearing and Ae 1 said order shall remain operative till such order is vacated subsequent </ ; to the date on which interim order was granted. Nothing has been /y.^ ^ 3 placed on the record of this writ petition to demonstrate that said interim order passed by the M.J.C. Court on 9/09/2008 has been modified or vacated at any subsequent stage ofthe proceeding. Thus, the said interim order is still operative and tfae Executing Court is not justified in proceeding ahead with the execution. (6) In view of the above, the present writ petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia is disposed ofwith a direction to the M.J.C. Court to decide the application under Order 9 Rule 13 ofCPC within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order and during the said period the interim order passed by the M.J.C. Court on 9/09/2008 shall remain operative. (7) The writ petition is disposed ofwith the above direction. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^