AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 276 wordsVishwanath, J.—Notice of admission has been served on the respondent. However he has remained absent and is unrepresented.
The Revision Petition is admitted.
The Revision petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Civil Judge on I.A.No. I in R.A.No. 94 of 1992 on 5.10.1993 granting stay of operation of the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Magadi, in O.S. No. 71 of 1984 on 17.9.1992. The said suit was for permanent injunction.
The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit which, as already stated, was for permanent injunction.
The plaintiff who is the respondent in this Revision Petition has filed the appeal before the learned Civil Judge challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, Magadi, dismissing the suit for permanent injunction. In the appeal the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 1 under Order XLI Rule 5 and the learned Civil Judge allowed it, His order is to the effect that operation of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff in O.S.No. 71 of 1984 dismissing the suit is stayed till the disposal of the said appeal.
As I have already stated, the suit which was for permanent injunction came to be dismissed by the learned Munsiff. When the suit for permanent injunction was dismissed, there was no executable order or decree. When there is no executable decree, the learned Civil Judge has committed a mistake in passing the impugned order staying the operation of the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 71 of 1984.
Hence the Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the learned Civil Judge on I.A.No. I in R.A.No. 44 of 1992 is set aside.