Read Time: 07 minutes
While directing the appellant to deposit the decreed amount, Delhi High Court has recently observed that cogent and adequate reasons should be made out to grant an unconditional stay of execution proceedings.
“This Court is also of the prima facie view that the learned Single Judge has power and jurisdiction under Chapter XA of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 to pass a summary judgment without recording oral evidence”, Division Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Asha Menon noted.
In the present matter, the learned Single Judge passed impugned decree without framing any issues, permitting admission denial of documents and without complying with the mandate of filing an application under order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.
The contention of the appellant was that the learned Single Judge did not follow the steps regarding case management hearing that were mandatory under order XVA of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.
Averment of the respondents was that the appellant’s written statement should not be deemed to be on record and was not in accord with Chapter VII, Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court ( Original Side) Rules,2018 as the same was filed without enclosing an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents. The respondents further contended that the appellants had urged the Single Judge to dismiss the plaint filed by the respondents summarily without framing issues or filing an application under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908
The Bench opined that the learned Single Judge should not have looked into the written statement filed by the appellant without the same being accompanied by admission/denial of the documents in view of the judgment in Unilin Beheer B.V. vs. Balaji Action Buildwell 2019 SCC OnLine Del. 8498 and Chapter VII, Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
Reliance was placed on the judgement of Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Praveen Davar and Ors. Vs. Harvansh Kumari and Ors; 2008 SCC Online Del 821 which it was held that the Appellate Court could put the appellant on such reasonable terms as would in the opinion of the Court reasonably compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the decree by the grant of a stay order.
The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court judgement of M/s Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jyoti Ltd; (2009) 2 SCC 426 in which it was held that in money decree, normally there would be no stay till the decretal amount was deposited or security was given for the said amount. It was also held that an exceptional case had to be made for stay of execution of a money decree. It was further held that for a stay to be granted, cogent and adequate reasons must be given.
Thus while disposing of the application, the Court relied on the provisions of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 that gives power and jurisdiction to the Appellate Court to pass interim orders and directed for a stay of execution proceedings if the appellant deposited the amount.
Case Title: Brijesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. V. IFCI Factors Limited & Anr.
Law Point/Statute Involved: Order XVA, Order XIIIA and Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 and Chapter VII, Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
Please Login or Register
