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
5 paragraphs · 171 wordsGokal Chand Mital, J.—The revision is wholly mis-conceived. An application under Order 41 Rule 6 (2) of the CPC (for short ''the Code''), is maintainable only after Court orders sale of the property in execution of the decree. In this case the Executing Court has not been able to make attachment of the property of the Judgment debtor what to talk of sale.
In the grounds of revision No. 8, the following prayer of the judgment-debtor is contained :
"The present prayer is not for stay of the execution of the decree but for the acceptance of an adequate bank guarantee for the decretal amount till the final disposal of the RSA on merits."
Such a prayer cannot be made to the ''Executing Court under Order 41 Rule 6 (2) of the Code. However, such an order can be passed by the Appellate Court where this appeal is pending under Order 41 Rule 5 (1) of the Code.
For the reasons recorded above, the revision is dismissed with costs.