Mere Pendency of Restoration Application Does Not Entitle Petitioner to Stay of Execution Proceedings

The Petitioner (Defendant No. 1) challenged an order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the 9th District Judge, Raipur, which rejected an application under Section 151 of the CPC to stay execution proceedings.

In 2014, a decree for declaration of title and removal of encroachment was passed in favor of Respondent No. 1.

The Petitioner’s First Appeal (No. 52/2014) against said decree was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10.07.2017.

The Petitioner claimed they only became aware of the dismissal upon receiving an execution notice on 02.04.2025, attributing the lapse to the retirement of the Officer-in-charge in 2014.

The Petitioner filed a restoration application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC along with a Section 5 Limitation Act application on 02.01.2026.

Pending this restoration, the Petitioner sought a stay on the execution of the 2014 decree, which the lower court refused.

Whether the learned appellate Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in refusing to stay execution proceedings during the pendency of a restoration application for a dismissed appeal.

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, regarding the inherent powers of the court to meet the ends of justice.

Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC concerning the restoration of appeals dismissed for default.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the condonation of delay.

The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which limits interference to cases of patent illegality or perversity.

The Court observed that the Petitioner demonstrated gross negligence and a lack of diligence in prosecuting the litigation.

Although the Petitioner’s principal retired in April 2014, the appeal was not dismissed until July 2017—a three-year window during which the Petitioner failed to track the case.

A significant gap existed between the dismissal (2017) and the filing of the restoration application (2026), and even after admittedly receiving notice of the execution in April 2025, the Petitioner waited another eight months to file the restoration application.

The Court reasoned that the mere pendency of a restoration application, especially one hampered by significant delay and an undecided limitation application, does not automatically entitle a party to stay a decree that has attained finality.

The Court found that the appellate court’s refusal to grant discretionary relief was justified given the "prolonged pendency" of execution since 2017 and the Petitioner’s conduct.

The Court answered the issue in the negative, affirming that the Petitioner's negligence disentitled them to discretionary relief.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and no order as to costs was made.