Facts
The respondent obtained a decree for possession and recovery of rent in O.S. No. 42/2019 on 10 July 2023.
Source reference: p. 3–5The petitioners appealed in R.A. No. 25/2023 and sought a stay under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Source reference: p. 3–5The appellate court rejected the application on 4 March 2025; execution proceedings were pending.
Source reference: p. 3–5In the writ petition challenging that rejection, the petitioners undertook to vacate and hand over the premises by 6 August 2027, pay monthly rent of Rs. 4,000 from 1 October 2026 until vacating, and withdraw the appeal.
Source reference: p. 3–5The respondent acknowledged receipt of Rs. 50,000 toward rent arrears.
Source reference: p. 3–5The petitioners also sought permission to repair the shed and undertook not to claim damages or equity for the repairs.
Source reference: p. 3–5Issues
1. Whether the order rejecting the petitioners’ application for stay under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution
Source reference: p. 3–42. Whether the writ petition could be disposed of on the basis of the petitioners’ undertaking to vacate the premises, pay rent, and withdraw the appeal
Source reference: p. 4–6Law Applied
Article 227 of the Constitution provides the basis for the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.
Source reference: p. 3–6Order XLI Rule 5 CPC concerns the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.
Source reference: p. 3–6The Court cited no precedent and did not set out or apply a substantive test for granting a stay; instead, it disposed of the petition on the basis of the petitioners’ affidavit and undertaking.
Source reference: p. 3–6Reasoning
The Court did not determine the merits of the challenge to the appellate court’s refusal of a stay.
Source reference: p. 4–6During the writ proceedings, the petitioners undertook to vacate by a specified date, pay monthly rent, and withdraw their appeal; the respondent accepted the rent arrears payment and agreed to the undertaking.
Source reference: p. 4–6In light of those commitments, the Court disposed of the petition by recording and enforcing the undertaking, while permitting repairs to the shed.
Source reference: p. 4–6Holding
The writ petition was disposed of on the terms of the petitioners’ undertaking.
The petitioners were directed to vacate by 6 August 2027, pay Rs. 4,000 per month from 1 October 2026 until that date, and file a memo withdrawing R.A. No. 25/2023.
Source reference: p. 6–7They were not to seek an extension of time and were permitted to make necessary repairs to the shed.
Source reference: p. 6–7The pending interlocutory application was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 6–7Original Court PDF
MOHAMMED KHAJA MIYA DIED BY HIS LRSvsSYEDA RANA KAWSER W/O M.A. JABBAR KHAN
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
