Order 21 Rule 29 CPC applies only when both the execution proceedings and the suit between the decree-holder and judgment debtor are pending before the same Court. Section 151 CPC cannot be used to seek stay of execution proceedings. The executing Court has the discretion to stay its own proceedings, but it should be exercised judiciously and only in exceptional cases.

ORDER :

This writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A. No. 12 dated 01.12.2016 in E.P. No. 18/2012 on the file of the Civil Judge, Haliyal whereby the said application filed by the respondent-judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC seeking stay of further proceedings in the execution petition till disposal of O.S. No. 22/2016 pending on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge, Yallapur sitting at Haliyal, was allowed by the executing Court.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:

The petitioners herein instituted a suit in O.S. No. 3/1971 against the respondent herein for possession, mesne profits and other reliefs before the Civil Judge, karwar. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Haliyal (trial Court) and re-numbered as O.S. No. 79/2003. By judgment and decree dated 07.09.2006, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners against the respondents, thereby directing the respondents to hand over possession of the suit ‘A’ schedule property to the petitioners within a period of three months and granted mesne profits in their favour.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in R.A. No. 8/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge, Yallapur. The said appeal was allowed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007, as a result of which the suit filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in R.A. No. 8/2006, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal in R.S.A. No. 520/2008 before this Court. By judgment and decree dated 15.07.2011, this Court allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and restored the judgment and decree of the trial Court, thereby directing the respondent to hand over possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioners.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.S.A. No. 520/2008 dated 15.07.2011, the respondent herein preferred SLP No. 28413/2012 before the Apex Court. By order dated 05.10.2012, the Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition preferred by the respondent, consequent upon which the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by this Court in R.S.A. No. 528/2008 became conclusive and binding upon the respondent, who became liable to quit, deliver and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioners.

Subsequently, the petitioners instituted execution proceedings in E.P. No. 18/2012 before the trial Court (executing Court) to enforce the aforesaid judgment and decree passed in their favour against the respondent. In the said execution proceedings, the respondent/ judgment debtor filed an application under Section 47 CPC seeking dismissal of the execution petition. The said application was allowed by the executing Court, aggrieved by which the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 81052/2013 which was allowed vide order dated 17.07.2014 and set aside the order passed by the executing Court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/ judgment debtor preferred SLP No. 28181/2014 before the Apex Court which also came to be rejected vide order dated 03.11.2014 thereby confirming the dismissal of the application filed by the respondent.

Subsequent to rejection of the aforesaid SLP No. 29181/2014 by the Apex Court, the respondent/judgment debtor filed the suit in O.S. No. 22/2016 on the file of the Civil Judge, Yallapur sitting at Haliyal for declaration that the aforesaid judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioners was a nullity and for other reliefs. In this context, it is relevant to note that the petitioner No.1 executed a registered gift deed dated 03.07.2014 in favour of the petitioner No.2 and consequently both of them are continuing the instant execution proceedings.

3. During the pendency of the aforesaid execution proceedings, the respondent