ORDER
K.A. Swami, J.
1. This C.R.P. is preferred against the order of eviction dated 21-1-1985 passed by the XI Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, in H.R.C. No. 970/83. Records of the original and execution proceedings are obtained.
2. The petitioner-tenant was granted one year for vacating the schedule premises which expired on 21-1-1986. After the expiry of that period, the petitioner has filed the top noted C.R.P. against the order of eviction along with an application for condonation of delay. On 29-1-1986 this Court has directed issue of emergent notice to the respondent and has also issued interim order staying further proceedings in H.R.C. No. 970 of 1983 on the file of XI Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, for a period of six weeks from 29-1-1986. The interim order is passed in terms of the prayer made in the application for stay. Though the prayer made in the application is not properly worded, the effect of the interim order is to stay the operation of the order of eviction passed in the aforesaid H.R.C. 970 of 1983.
3. On 22-1-1986 the respondent-landlord filed an execution petition being Execution Case No. 356/86 before the Court below. The Court passed an order on 24-1-1986 directing issue of delivery of possession warrant returnable by 5-2-1986. Pursuant to that the delivery of possession warrant dated 27-1-1986 as the records reveal appears to have been handed over to the Court Bailiff by name D. Puttaswamy on 28-1-1986, who went to the spot on 30-1-1986 to deliver possession of the premises in question to the respondent landlord. According to the mahazar drawn by the Bailiff, he went to the spot at about 8-30 a.m. on 30-1-1986. The petitioner sought for an hour to vacate. At that time, Learned Counsel for the petitioner also appeared on the spot and brought to the notice of the Bailiff that the High Court had passed an interim order staying the operation of the order of eviction, therefore he may be granted time till 10-30 a.m. to produce the slay order. The Bailiff did not heed to the request and proceeded to execute the order and delivered possession of the premises to the respondent by 9-45 a.m. (see delivery of possession receipt executed by the respondent). In view of this, the petitioner has filed the application (I.A. Ill) on 31-1-1986 for restoration of possession. Notice was ordered by telegraphic communication to the respondent on 31-1-1986. Pursuant to that, the respondent and his Counsel both are present in the Court and the respondent has also filed the objections. Both the parties are heard.
4. During the course of hearing it was brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had not paid the arrears of rent of Rs. 480/- covering the rent till the end of January, 1986. However, immediately the petitioner paid Rs. 480/- to the Learned Counsel for the Respondent. Thus, the petitioner has paid the rent upto date till the end of January, 1986.
5. In para 4 of the objections filed by the respondent to I.A. III it is stated as follows :
“In this context this opponent/respondent respectfully submits that the bailiff in the above case gone on to the spot at 9-00 a.m. on 30-1-1986. The petitioner/applicant was present in the premises and therefore, the bailiff started executing the order of eviction by keeping the things in the subject premises one by one out by making an inventory. When he was halfway through at about 9-30 a.m., one of the sons of the applicant/petitioner brought their lawyer to the premises at 9-30 a.m. The Advocate did say that there is the High Court order to stay the execution but, opponent-respondent and bailiff told the Advocate to show the stay order if any. The Advocate of the applicant/petitioner then told this opponent/respondent and bailiff that he would get the stay order and show the same with in half an hour. But the Advocate did not turn up with the stay order as promised by him with the result the bailiff has completed the process but about 10-30 a.m., on that day and thus executed the order of eviction”.
From the mahazar drawn by the Bailiff and the delivery of possession receipt executed by the respondent it is clear that the possession was delivered by 9-45 a.m. itself. Thus, the statement made in para 4 of the objections by the respondent that the possession was delivered at 10-30 a.m. and the Advocate of the petitioner did not turn upon within half an hour with the order of stay is not correct. In fact, no time was granted to the petitioner or his Counsel to produce the stay order. However, it is established beyond doubt that the Counsel for the petitioner did appear and State that the High Court had passed an order staying the execution. But, the Bailiff proceeded to execute the order because no order was produced. It is an established position of law that whenever an interim order of stay of the superior Court is brought to the knowledge of the subordinate Court, it must stay its hands and stop all further proceedings in execution at the stage at which the order of stay is brought to its notice. Any further proceeding taken thereafter in furtherance of the execution is a nullity (See : Mulraj v. Murti Raghwnathji Maharaj), . In case, in spite of this the executing Court proceeds with the execution, such a proceeding is liable to be set aside and the position that was obtaining on the date of passing the order of stay can be restored, The knowledge of the stay order passed by the superior Court need not be by way of official communication. It can even be by the information furnished by one party or the other with an affidavit in support of the information or in any other manner. In the instant case the Counsel himself has appeared and has brought to the notice of the Bailiff the stay order passed by this Court.
6. On going through the records of the execution proceeding, the application filed by the petitioner and the objections filed by the respondent, I have left with no doubt that the Bailiff has acted arbitrarily and in violation of the interim order of stay passed by this Court, in proceeding with the execution and delivering possession of the premises, inspite of the fact that it was brought to his notice by no less than the Counsel for the petitioner that this Court has passed an order of stay. The Bailiff has acted not only unreasonably and improperly but also in wilful dis-obedience to the interim order of this Court. Nothing would have been lost and no harm or prejudice or injury would have been caused to the respondent if the execution had been postponed by a day. There is no doubt that it is a case in which disciplinary proceeding should be initiated against the Bailiff, in addition to any other action to be taken or proceeding to be initiated under any other law. It is such arbitrary and improper acts which not only tarnish the image of the judiciary but cause incalculable injury to the parties to the proceeding. If such acts on the part of the executing staff of the Court is not dealt with strictly and viewed seriously the administration of justice is bound to suffer.
7. In view of the fact that the execution has been effected in spite of the fact that it was brought to the notice of the Bailiff that an interim order of stay was passed by this Court, the whole execution is liable to be set aside. This can even be done by the executing Court itself in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on an appropriate application made by the party concerned. At the same time in an appropriate case, if the expediency demands it, and it is necessary to immediately restore possession of the property, even this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by suo moto exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure it” the proceeding is amenable to Section 115 of the C.P.C. can set aside the execution proceeding which has taken place in contravention of the interim order of stay passed by this Court. However, the case must be such so as to warrant exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. In the instant case the petitioner is dispossessed from the schedule premises inspite of the fact that the stay order passed by this Court was brought to the notice of the Bailiff. The petitioner has no premises to occupy. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for restoration of possession that the petitioner and her family members have slept on the street and she is a poor lady and has no alternative accommodation. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to immediately restore possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner. The execution proceeding in question is amenable to Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the C.P.C. Therefore, it is eminently a fit case for suo moto exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the C.P.C. and to set aside the execution proceeding as otherwise judicial discipline cannot either be maintained or enforced. In addition to this, immediate possession of the premises is required to be restored of to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, learned Counsel for the respondent has graciously come forward to immediately restore possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner voluntarily without the intervention of the Court by 9 a.m. on 5-2-1986.
8. For the reasons stated above, the execution proceeding in Execution Case No. 356 of 1986 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Bangalore City, starting from the order dated 24-1-1986 culminating in the delivery of possession including the warrant for delivery of possession, mahazar and receipt for delivery of possession are set aside. However, the execution petition is remitted to the Court below with a direction to keep it pending until the Civil Revision Petition is decided.
9. Pursuant to the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondent, he is directed to restore possession of the schehule premises to the petitioner voluntarily by 9 a.m. tomorrow i.e. 5-2-1986. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent must report the matter by 10-30 a.m. tomorrow regarding the restoration of possession of the premises in question to the petitioner. The objections if any may be filed by the respondent within two weeks to the application for condonation of delay in filing the C.R.P. by the petitioner.
10. Bring up this petition on 18-2-1986 for further hearing.
11. The records of the C.R.P and also of the execution proceeding along with a copy of this order be placed before the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice for taking appropriate action in the matter against the Bailiff.