ORDER :

M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the judgment Debtors assailing the order, dated 27.12.2018, of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, passed in EP No. 326 of 2009 in OS No. 306 of 1999.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners/judgment Debtors ('JDrs', for brevity). Though the 1st respondent/Decree Holder (DHr) is served with notice, it did not enter appearance. However, on the day the matter is listed for pronouncement of orders, the 1st respondent/DHr entered appearance. Hence, on 2.8.2019, further submissions of both the sides are heard. The 2nd respondent is stated to be a formal party.

3. Learned Counsel for the JDrs submits as follows:

"The DHr filed a suit against the JDrs for specific performance. The said suit was decreed. The JDrs filed an appeal in AS No. 330 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the learned HI Additional District Judge, Guntur. The said appeal was dismissed. The JDrs preferred a second appeal in SA No. 965 of 2009 on the file of this Court. In SAMP No. 2108 of 2009 in the said SA No. 965 of 2009, on 23.10.2009, this Court granted the following interim order: 'Interim stay as prayed for'. However, the DHr filed an execution petition in EP No. 326 of 2009 inter alia stating that as per the decree direction, the balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- is deposited into Court, on 21.11.2002, vide VR No. 619 of 2002 and requesting the executing Court to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the decree. The JDrs having entered appearance have not filed a counter. However, it was brought to the notice of the executing Court that the stay orders are granted by the High Court in the second appeal. The fact that the stay orders granted by the High Court in the second appeal was brought to the notice of the executing Court is borne out by the docket sheet/proceeding sheet maintained in the execution petition by the executing Court as the executing Court mentioned about the receipt of copy of the stay orders from the High Court on the proceeding sheet, on 1.12.2009, 29.12.2009 and 2.2.2010. However, on 29.12.2018, the executing Court directed the DHr to file stamp papers. Further, on filing of the non-judicial stamp papers, permission was granted to register the sale deed in accordance with law on deposit of process fee. The said order, impugned in this revision, was passed, on 27.12.2018. Despite the fact that stay orders are granted, as prayed for, in favour of the appellants/JDrs in SAMP No. 2108 of 2009 in SA No. 965 of 2009, the executing Court directed the DHr for filing stamp papers, engrossing the sale deed on the stamp papers and registration of the sale deed. The executing Court ought not to have executed the sale deed and ought not to have permitted for registration of the sale deed in view of the stay orders granted in favour of the JDrs in their above said second appeal. The orders directing to file stamp papers and the execution and registration of the sale deed are non est, in the light of the stay orders granted by this Court and the sale deed that was executed and registered inspite of the stay order by the High Court granted against the execution of the decree had no legal validity and has to be ignored. The DHr played fraud on the Court. The executing Court wrongly applied the orders, dated 28.3.2018, of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013 in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC), though the guidance in the said precedent is not applicable to the execution proceedings. In the said decision, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph (35) held as follows:

'In view of the above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on accoun