COLLECTOR Vs. PADMA CHARAN MOHANTY
LAWS(ORI)-1980-5-12
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on May 20,1980

COLLECTOR Appellant
VERSUS
Padma Charan Mohanty Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. VS. PRATIBHA PRAKASH BHAWAN REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MANAGER, BRAJA SUNDAR PATNAIK [LAWS(ORI)-1989-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
KANPUR JAL SANSTHAN VS. M/S. BAPU CONSTRUCTION [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-75] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. T K KURUVILLA [LAWS(KER)-2004-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR VS. PRATIBHA PRAKASH BHAWAN [LAWS(ORI)-1989-11-44] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

S.K.Ray, J. - (1.)THE question whether the Appellant who is the Collector of Cuttack shall be required to furnish security for the due performance of the decree under appeal while granting stay of execution of the decree was mooted before the Registrar. Having regard to the importance of the question, he, by his order dated 7 -5 -80, placed the matter before the Bench for orders. This question was argued by the learned Counsel for the parties on 14 -5 -1980. We reserved passing of final order in the matter. We now proceed to deal with the question.
(2.)THIS appeal is directed against the decree passed in L.A. Misc. Case No. 12 of 1975 which had been registered on a reference being made by the Land Acquisition Collector (here after referred to as Collector) under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The Subordinate Judge who disposed of the case determined the market value to be Rs. 31,625.00. The Collector had determined the value to be Rs. 3,968.85 and that amount had been received by the claimant under protest. The amount disputed in this appeal is, therefore, Rs. 27,656.15.
The Respondent decree -holder filed. Execution Case No. 256 of 1978 for realisation of the decretal amount. The Appellant, therefore, filed an application under Order 41, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure for stay of further proceedings of the execution case. It gave rise to the aforesaid question as to whether the Appellant shall be called upon to furnish security as a condition of grant of stay.

(3.)THE learned Counsel for the Appellant relies on Rule 8A of Order 27, Code of Civil Procedure for the proposition that no security shall be required from the Government as a condition of grant of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel for the Respondent resists this contention relying upon Sub -rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41. It was further contended that reading Sub -rule (3) of Rule 1 with Sub -rule (3) of Rule 5 of Order 41 it is clear that the Appellant, be he the State or a private party, is bound to furnish security for the due performance of the decree as may ultimately be binding upon him.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.