DATTARAYA S/O KESHAV TAWALAY versus SHAIKH MAHBOOB SHAIKH ALI & ANR.

DATTARAYA S/O KESHAV TAWALAY versus SHAIKH MAHBOOB SHAIKH ALI & ANR.

The stay of execution granted by the High Court suspends the reciprocal obligation of deposit and delivery of possession under Order 20 Rule 14 CPC; therefore, time for deposit is enlarged till disposal of appeal. Dismissal of the second appeal by the High Court gives a fresh starting point for deposit, and as appellant deposited before this date, there was no default and he is entitled to possession.

Parties
Appellant: Dattaraya S/o Keshav Tawalay; Respondent No. 1: Shaikh Mahboob Shaikh Ali; Respondent No. 2: Shaikh Ali
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 October 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court Judgment Dated October 11/14, 1963 in Appeal No. 30 of 1962
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Pre Emption, Stay of Execution, Restitution, Decree Enforcement
Civil Procedure Pre Emption Stay of Execution Restitution Decree Enforcement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dattaraya S/o Keshav Tawalay

Appellant

Shaikh Mahboob Shaikh Ali

Respondent No. 1

Shaikh Ali

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court Judgment Dated October 11/14, 1963 in Appeal No. 30 of 1962

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the stay of execution by the High Court affects the time limit for deposit of purchase money under Order 20 Rule 14 CPC.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's deposit after the fixed date, but during continuance of court-ordered stay, satisfies the conditions of the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The stay of execution granted by the High Court suspends the reciprocal obligation of deposit and delivery of possession under Order 20 Rule 14 CPC; therefore, time for deposit is enlarged till disposal of appeal. Dismissal of the second appeal by the High Court gives a fresh starting point for deposit, and as appellant deposited before this date, there was no default and he is entitled to possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of Bombay High Court dated October 11/14, 1963 set aside.
  • Application for restitution by first defendant under section 144 CPC dismissed.