9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the executing court in refusing to stay execution proceedings under Section 15 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. 2. Interpretation and enforceability of the surety bond executed by the appellant. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Executing Court: The first issue concerns whether the executing court acted without jurisdiction in refusing to stay the execution proceedings against the appellant, contrary to Section 15 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. Section 15 stipulates that all proceedings pending in any civil court in respect of any debt to which a displaced debtor is subject shall be stayed if the debtor has made an application to the Tribunal under Section 5 or Section 11(2) of the Act. The court found that the statutory stay could only be invoked if two conditions were satisfied: 1. The Tribunal before which the application under Section 5 is filed must have territorial jurisdiction. 2. The proceedings must be in respect of a debt owed by the displaced person. In this case, the Tribunal at Dehra Dun held that it had no territorial jurisdiction and returned the application for presentation to a proper tribunal. The application was not represented to the proper tribunal, and the appeal against this order was dismissed. As there was no application pending before any Tribunal, the court was within its rights in not acting under Section 15 of the Act. The court also noted that the filing of an appeal does not automatically suspend the operation of an order appealed from unless the appellate court stays it or a statute provides for such a stay. Thus, the executing court's decision to proceed with the execution was upheld. 2. Interpretation and Enforceability of the Surety Bond: The second issue revolves around the interpretation of the surety bond executed by the appellant. The bond stated that the appellant agreed to pay a sum not exceeding Rs. 12,000 if the second respondent defaulted in producing and placing at the disposal of the court the properties specified in the schedule or their value. The appellant contended that the surety bond must be strictly construed and that the liability of the surety arises only if the principal debtor is required to produce and place the specified properties at the disposal of the court and defaults in doing so. The court agreed with this interpretation, stating that the terms of the bond were clear and unambiguous. The bond required the judgment-debtor to produce the bills or their value when required by the court. Since there was no order or entry in the order sheet requiring the judgment-debtor to produce and place the property in court, the condition for the surety's liability was not fulfilled. The court emphasized that a surety bond must be strictly construed and that the liability of the surety arises only if the conditions specified in the bond are met. The court found that no demand was made on the second respondent to produce the property, and thus, the appellant's liability under the bond did not arise. Conclusion: The court set aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the application for execution filed by the first respondent against the appellant. However, it directed each party to bear their own costs, noting that the appellant had failed to raise this specific objection in her initial objections or before the learned District Judge.
|
