CR No.7450 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7450 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.12.2009 Nazam Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. Sukhdev Singh ..Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Invoking the supervisory power of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda to decide his application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short `CPC') on the date already fixed. The case of the petitioner is that respondent had filed a suit for recovery which has been decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Phul on 12.6.2009 against which he had filed first appeal along with an application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC seeking stay of execution of the judgment and decree. The appeal was listed before Additional District Judge, Bhatinda in which the following order was passed: “Appeal has been presented before me today as matter involved in the appeal is urgent and immediate and Ld.District Judge Bhatinda is on leave. Heard. This appeal is fairly arguable. So the same is admitted. Notice of appeal be given to respondent for 28.7.2009. Alongwith appeal an application for staying the operation CR No.7450 of 2009 -2- of impugned judgment and decree has also been filed. Notice of this application be also issued to the respondent for the date fixed.” Thereafter, the appeal along with application was fixed before the Court of Sh.H.P.S.Mahal, Additional District Judge, Bhatinda and was adjourned time and again whereas in the meantime, warrants of attachment were issued in the execution by the learned trial Court for 9.12.2009 and the order was passed for attachment of salary of the petitioner, who is employed as a Government Teacher. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application on 27.11.2009 for early hearing of the application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC which was taken up by the learned Additional District Judge on 28.11.2009 and was put up for hearing on 28.11.2009. Again the said application was adjourned for 4.12.2009 which is now fixed for 18.12.2009 for filing of reply. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in which the appeal was admitted by the learned first Appellate Court on 3.8.2009 but no order for stay has been passed so far despite various adjournments, the present petition is allowed and the Court of learned Additional District Judge, who is seized of the matter, is directed to decide the application either-way on the date already fixed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 15.12.2009 Judge Meenu