JUDGMENT
V.S. Kokje, J.
1. Heard Shri S. L.
Pamecha, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission.
2. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by VIIth Addl. District Judge, Indore dismissing a revision application filed before him by the petitioner against refusal of the executing court to stay the proceeding of execution pending disposal of an application under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Civil P. C. filed by the Judgment-Debtor/petitioner.
3. The petitioners were tenants in a house No. 147, Ranipura Main Road, Indore. A decree for ejectment was passed against them in favour of respondents. This decree was maintained till the Supreme Court. In the execution of that decree on 14-10-1991 an application under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code was moved. On 20-1-1991 the application was rejected. A civil revision was filed against that order and the revisional court allowing the revision directed that an inquiry should be held in the allegations contained in application under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code. Against that order a writ petition is pending in this Court. The petitioner moved an application in the execution case that till the disposal of the application under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code further proceedings in execution proceedings be stayed. The executing court dismissed the application and against that order the petitioners tiled a revision application before the District Court. The District Court relying on a decision of this court in Govindlal v. General Radio & Electric Co., 1991 (2) MPJR 197, dismissed the revision. The petitioners have now come up before this court.
4. The main contention of Shri S. L. Pamecha, learned counsel for the petitioners is that Govindlal’s case (supra) runs counter to an earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Surendrasingh v. Lal Shivraj Bahadursingh, AIR 1975 MP 85, and, therefore, needs reconsideration. We have gone through Surendrasingh’s case (supra), that was not a case arising out of an adjustment proceedings under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code. That was a case arising out of a regular suit and in that case an injunction pendente lite was claimed. Here in this case the petitioners have fought up to the Supreme Court and when the special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court the petitioner came out with a plea of an adjustment of a decree. Ordinarily it cannot prima facie be believed that a landlord who has had to fight for getting an eviction decree up to the Supreme Court would agree to give away the fruits of the litigation by entering into an agreement to adjust the decree. In such cases before staying the execution the court will require a strong prima facie case in favour of the adjustment. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as to what material would be sufficient for grant of stay of execution in such cases. In the present case the executing court refused to stay the proceedings and the revisional court has also refused to interfere. Looking to the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India there is hardly any ground on which the orders of the executing court and the revisional court could be interfered with. The petition has no force and is consequently dismissed without notice to the other side.