DEO CHAND versus SHIV RAM

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 24-08-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAGHUBAR DAYAL · Disposal: Rejected

Judgment (excerpt)

~1 
. ,,. 
A 
DEO CHAND 
v. 
smv RAM 
August 24, 1964 
B 
(RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND S. M. S!KRI IJ.) 
Supreme Court Rules, 1950, 0. XLV, r. 5-lnherent powers-Putting 
re1por,dent. in Supreme Court on terms-Whether in the interestt of justice. 
Pending appeal in the Supreme Court, the respondents (decree holders) 
obtained possession of the suit property in execution of the decree in their 
·favour. The appellants did not take any action for stay or directions 
C 
under 0. XLV, r. 13(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908Y. 
Later, they applied to the Supreme Court to put the respondent on terms, 
invoking the inherent powers of that Court under 0. XLV; r. 5 of the 
Suprea11> Court Rules. 
HELD : The Supreme Court cannot exercise any inherent powers to 
put the respondents on terms, or to direct them to furnish security for tho> 
delivery of the suit property or for the payment of mesne profits, or to 
D 
restrain them from transferring the suit property. [l 15B-C]. 
' 
The rule provides that the Rules of the Supreme Court do not affect 
the inherent powers of the Court to make orders to meet the ends of justice 
or to prevent abuse of process of Court. Since the appellant would be 
entitled to recover such mesne profits as the law allows, and any transfers 
of the suit property would be subject to the Jaw of /is pendens, to pass 
any orders restraining a party in posspsion of property delivered by Court, 
E 
cannot be in the interests of justice. [l 15C-E[. 
F 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Miscellaneous Petition 
No. 1223 of 1964 in Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
August 31, 1962, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in S. A. No. 
597 of 1960. 
Naunit Lal, for the petitioners. 
The respondent did not appear. 
ORDER 
This application purports to be orte under 0. XLV, rr. 2 and 
G 5 of the Supreme Court Rules and contains the following pray-
ers:-
·H 
USup./64-8 
( i) to direet the respondents to furnish security for 
delivering possession of the lands in dispute and fOl" 
payment of mesne profits and costs which the peti-
tjoners might get in appeal; 
(ii) t~ r~:;train the respondents from transferring the 
lands'>in dispute or creating any charge on the said 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1965) I S.C.R. 
lands pending the decision of the appeal in this 
A 
Hon'ble Court; 
(iii) to send for the record of the case and get the nx:ord 
\; 
printed under the supervision of this Hon 'ble Court; 
(iv) to order an early hearing of the case. 
Prayers nos. (i) and (ii) appear to have been made in view of B 
r. 5 which provides that nothing in the rules shall be deemed to 
limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make 
such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to pre-
vent abuse of the. process of the Court. 
The respondents-decree holders have obtained possession of 
the land in suit, in execution of the decree in their favour. 
The 
C 
petitioners did not take any action under 0. XLV, r. 13(2), Civil 
Procedure Code, at 
the time the respondents-decree holden 
applied for execution. H they had applied to the High Court for 
the stay of execution, the High Court could have either allowed 
execution on taldng security from the respondents for the duo D 
per(ormance of any order which this Court might have made ou 
the appeal or might have stayed the execution of the decree on 
taking security from the petitioners-appellants for the due p«-
formance of the decree appealed from or of any decree or ordec 
which this Court might make on the appeal. The question arises 
whether, after the decree has been executed and the decree-holders 
E 
have been put in possession by the Court, this Court can put the 
respondents-decree holders to terms and direct them to furniah 
llCCl!rity for their delivering possession of the land in dispute im,d 
for payment of mesne profits, if the appeal succeeds and whethec 
the Court can restrain the respondents-decree· holders from trans-
ferring the lands in dispute, pending the decision of the appeal in F 
this Court. 
A notice of this petition was served on the respondents decree-
holders, but they did not put in appearance. 
Mr. Naunit Lal, for the petitioners, ha~ referred us to aome 
cases and to the provisions of the Ccide of Civil Procedure, in this 
connection. Reliance is chiefly placed on the case of Mst. lariut-
G 
ool-Butool v. Mst. Hoseinee Begum(') which was followed by 
the Madras High Court in Narayanan Chetti v. Aru

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.