—78 ^b^ ^" T^T ^l<4i<n^, ^•(-I^Ko, [sldl'H^ 11*1CTI (tl*11<!h ^200 W^T ^RFT ( yif^^) ^TT^T ^T f<4J<=h ^T^n 3TT^T $ti^ioh '^^TW^Tf^T ^T^T SIN6LE BENCH! HON'BLE W.P. [Art. ZfeTl No.3117/2008 PETrTIONER/ PSaintiff Sanjay aged aboul Accountan4y District l^intar Soni, S/o Shri Leela Ram Soni, 31 years, OccupaTion-Chartered f, ft/o Itwari Bazar, Raigarh , • (c.e.) Rc|igarh Vs RESPONDENTS DefendanTs 1. Smt. K| Sui^sh about Kotara (c.e.) 2. State dt Collectd 'ishcBi bevi Agarwal.W/o Shri Kumar Agarwal (Sansal), aged 8 years, K/o Vika^ Nagar 6ali, poad, Raigarh, bistrict - Raigarh 23.06.2008 Mr< Sunii Otwani, Advocatelfor Mr. Arun Sao, &ovemment Heard on admission. Thi's petition is directed a^ainfi 13.2.2008 passed by the 1st Addj No.21/07 whereby in a proceedin| Civi I Procedure, 1908 (for short| decree the dpplication under Se4tion respondent No.l/appliccuit has ^i^f^^ii 'Hw^if ^f fe^ <r»i^i< ^37fW37T^T JUST[CE DHIRENbRA MISHR^ |f Chhattisgarh Through: District \ Raigarh (C.@.) the petjtioner. Mvocate for the State, a<bainst the order of Annexure P-1 dated t-ional District Judge/ Rai^arh in M,J,C, under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of 'Code') for setting aside the ex-parte 151 of the Code preferred by the be^n allowed, execution of the decree. has XI-HG—78 s ^ 'S'ST T<ii^i<n^,ytii^<i<c, f®i<ni-H^< ^WWl <ShW«h "^ 200 ^TI^T ^^K (yif^^) ^TT^T^Tf^fNF ^T^T 37T^T^TRW ^HW^TT 3^T -^- been stayed and consequently, Exe by the petitioner has GJSO beer\ sta^ The petitioner h<ss filed thii of decree ccai be stayed only unde) rule (3) of Rute 26 of the Code stay the execution or for the restj the judgment-debtor, the court impose such conditions upon, the ju From bare reading of Orde{ where the defendant satisfies th< served, or he was prevented by anl the suit was called on for hearing aside the decree as agajnst him up( the Court or otherwise as it thinkt Gpplication of the judgment debto^ the Court OTH exercise its discreti! effectand operation of the decre^ So far GS the question of ij orders are granted by the Court'| <^(^F<n<4lri ^iHcn? ^r Fs^ <F»I^K ^? 3?f?W 3TT^?r ^cution Proceeding No.lOA/06 initiated ^led. petition on 1he ground that execution sh Order 21 Rule 26 of the Code. Sub- mo^dates that before making an order to tution of property or the discharge of [shall require such security from, or ju|dgment-debtor as it thinks fit. 9 Rule 13 of Code it is evident that court- that the summons was not duly sufficient ccuse from c^pearing when tite Court shall make an order setting >n such terms as to costs, payment into fit. Once the court is considering the for setting aside the ex-parte decree, )n under Section 151 of CPC to stoy the sought to be executed. nposing condition is concerned, interim as they are necessary to protect the XI-HC—78 'S'ST "MI^Kn-4, ^lll-H^Ko, [s(<ni-H^< *11N<flr ^HIcfr "^ 200 3TI^?T TT=W ('^j^f^^T) ^TT^T^ f<^icb TT^TT 3'TT^T 5h^i<=h AAU A- ^RTTW^f^T 3TT^T —z- interest tilj the rights are fjnally^ provided in 1+ie statute, the courts Therefore, the impugned questioned only on the ground proceeding without imposing any cost etc. will arise when the cour|t- parte decree. For the aforesaid reasonsj the impugned order is not likely petitioner warranting interfercnc|B Article 227 of the Constitution In the result, the petition be dismissed and it isaccordingly Con^quently, LA. No.l also <=r)i^t<n<flTi 'HPTOf ^f 'feT^t Tf^T^R '^'^f?H:[311^T finally ^djudicated upon. Even where it is not have inherent power to grant it lorder of the trial court cannot be jt-hat the court stayed the execution ^ondition, as imposition of terms as to makes an order setting aside the ex- in the considered opinion of this Court l-o cause nay manifest injustice to the in the exercise of jurisdiction under ofllndia. Itas no substcuices, the same deserves to lismissed at the admission stage itself. Istand dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge