1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The facts in nut shell are that the petitioner was declared black listed by the respondents in 1989. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action came to the High Court in C.W.J.C No. 4441 of 1989.
3. The said writ application was disposed of with the direction that the controversy cannot be examined in the writ proceedings as evidence was so required. However, the petitioner was given liberty either to make representation to the proper authority or if so advised to file civil suit. The petitioner accordingly filed title suit no. 570/90 in the court of Subordinate Judge, 8th Patna, seeking a declaration against the respondents that the order of black listing was per se illegal and deserved to be declared void. The respondents joined the issue. The trial court after recording evidence and hearing the parties vide its judgment and decree dated 6.9.96 decreed the suit and observed that the plaintiff was black listed without any cogent and reasonable ground and reason and on the grounds which were not found correct, the court also observed that the order black listing the petitioner was bad in law. The suit was ultimately decreed. As the petitioner's grievance did not come to an end he filed C.W.J.C No. 1297/99, the matter was finally disposed of on 10.8.99, the petitioner was permitted to make a representation on the basis of the orders obtained by him from the civil court. The petitioner thereafter on 2.9.99 filed a representation before the competent authority which by its letter dated 26.7.2000, as contained in Annexure-5, refused to decide the representation directing inter alia that as the decree passed by the sub-judge was subjudice in appeal no final order shall be passed on the representation made by the petitioner. The petitioner has again come to this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the declaratory decree granted in his favour and the execution of the said decree not stayed by the appellate court, the respondents are required to observe the mandate issue under the decree and issue consequential order and revoke the order of black listing. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is required to put the decree for its execution and as the decree is declaratory decree the respondents are not required to do anything further.
5. I have heard the parties.
6. Undisputedly, the appeal has already been preferred against the judgment and decree granted by the sub-judge in favour of the present petitioner. It is equally true that no stay either has been obtained or granted in favour of the petitioner. A declaratory decree under the law declares the right and status of the parties and, as such, a decree cannot be put into execution. Order 21 C.P.C relates to execution of different decrees but it does not provide any mode for executing a declaratory decree. However, under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C the effect and operation of the declaratory decree can always be stayed by the appellate court. The law on principles of stay and its operation is plain and simple. If the appellate court grants a stay then the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate court shall remain stayed but if a stay has not been prayed for or stay has not been granted by the appellate court then in cases of executable decrees, the decrees can be executed and in cases of declaratory decrees the parties would be bound by the declaration so issued by the competent courts. In the present case, a competent court has already declared the action of the respondents to be bad meaning thereby that black listing of the present petitioner was bad. If that be so, then in absence of an order of stay passed by the appellate court, the status of the parties would remain to be that the petitioner is not so black listed. Beyond this no further clarification in the matter is required.
7. The petition is disposed of.