Reddy v Deo Construction Development Co Ltd [2018] FJHC 593; HBC67.2015 (11 July 2018)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
[WESTERN DIVISION] AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. HBC 67 OF 2015

(on appeal from the High Court of Fiji at Lautoka in the matter Civil Action No. HBC 67 of 2015)

BETWEEN ANANTH AVIRAM REDDY of Lautoka, Engineer/Law Graduate and Businessman.

APPELLANT (ORIGINAL DEFENDANT) AND

DEO CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED a duly registered limited liability company having its registered office at Lot 11, Industrial Sub Division, Denarau Island, Nadi. RESPONDENT (ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF)

Appearances : Mr R. Singh for the appellant
Mr R. Charan for the respondent
Date of Hearing : 11 July 2018
Date of Ruling : 11 July 2018

R U L I N G
[on interim stay]

[01] This is an application for a stay on execution of the judgment delivered by the learned Master on 18 March 2016, pending determination of the application for enlargement of the time for appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit of Mr Ananth Aviram Reddy. The application is filed pursuant to O 59, R 16 of the High Court Rules 1988, as amended (‘HCR’) and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

[02] Mr Charan appearing for the respondent says his principal was not served with the application.

[03] On the other hand, Mr Singh, counsel for the applicant submits that initially this application was filed ex parte, however it has been issued for service. He further submits that there has been urgency in the matter as the respondent has filed a bankruptcy application in the Magistrate’s Court based on the judgment against which leave to appeal out of time is being filed.

[04] The HCR, Order 59, Rule 16 (1), states that: the filing of a notice of appeal or an application for leave shall not operate as a stay of execution or proceedings, or any step therein, unless the Court so directs.

[05] Having carefully considered the application, the affidavit filed in support and the submissions put forward in court, I am satisfied that there is urgency in the matter as the applicant is facing a bankruptcy application and that the bankruptcy application would cause hardship to the applicant if an interim stay of execution is not granted. I would, therefore, grant an interim stay of execution, pending determination of the application.

DATED THIS 11^TH DAY OF JULY 2018 AT LAUTOKA.

..................................
M.H. Mohamed Ajmeer
JUDGE

Solicitors:
For applicant: M/s Patel & Sharma Lawyers, Barristers & Solicitors
For respondent: M/s A K Lawyers, Barristers & Solicitors