C.R.No.6734 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6734 of 2011 Date of Decision: 4.11.2011 Satbir and another ....Petitioners Versus Smt Dano and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH, J By filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, defendant-petitioners have laid challenge to the impugned order dated 19.9.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Jind vide which their prayer for stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.8.2011 has been declined while observing that however if the possession is taken by the plaintiff-respondent by execution of the impugned judgment and decree, the same shall be subject to the decision of the appeal pending before the learned District Judge. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a Civil Suit No.239 of 18.12.2006 for possession of the agricultural land measuring 1 kanal 16 marla situated within the revenue estate of Village Budhakhera Lather, Tehsil Julana, District Jind as described in the head note of the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining the C.R.No.6734 of 2011 #2# defendants-petitioners from changing the nature of the suit land or from alienating the same in any way. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17.8.2011. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the defendant-petitioner filed an appeal and along with the appeal, an application for stay of execution of the impugned judgment and decree was also filed. After hearing both the sides, the prayer for stay was rejected, however, it was made clear that if the possession is taken by the plaintiff-respondent by execution of the impugned judgment and decree, the same shall be subject to the decision of the appeal pending before the learned District Judge, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner argues that the impugned order is wholly erroneous and non-speaking one as the plaintiff-petitioners had already filed the execution petition and in case the execution of the same is not stayed, the appeal will be rendered infructuous. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to reproduce the operative part of the impugned order dated 19.9.2011, which reads thus: “Heard on the stay application. No ground exists to stay operation of impugned judgment and decree. However, if the possession is taken by the respondents-plaintiff by C.R.No.6734 of 2011 #3# execution of impugned judgment and decree, the same shall be subject to decision of this appeal. Hence the application in this respect is hereby rejected.” A perusal of the relevant part of the order clearly reveals that the learned District Judge had made it very clear that if the possession is taken by the plaintiff-respondent while executing the impugned judgment and decree, then the same shall be subject to the decision of the appeal. Thus, the interest of the petitioner-defendant is already taken care of by the learned District Judge and it cannot be said that the appeal will be rendered infructuous in case the stay is not granted. Moreover, it is not a matter of course that in each and every case, the stay should be granted by the learned Appellate Court during the pendency of the appeal under Section 96 CPC rather the appellant has to show sufficient cause for grant of stay of execution of the impugned judgment and decree. Dismissed. November 04, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE