1. Heard Mr. Arjunwadkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. Mr. Shah submits that he has already filed Vakalatnama for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and he will file Vakalatnama for Respondent No. 4 within a period of one week from today.

3. The petitioners are legal representatives of Mr. Anant Lale, who was admittedly a judgment debtor under the decree in RCS No. 319 of 2000 instituted by late Balu Bhuji Lale. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, represented by Mr. Shah, are the legal representatives of late Balu Bhuji Lale, the decree-holders in RCS No. 319 of 2000.

4. Balu Bhuji Lale had instituted RCS No. 319 of 2000 to seek decree of specific performance as well as cancellation of sale deed in favour of Mr. Anant Lale, a subsequent purchaser of the suit property. The trial court partly decreed the suit by declining the relief of specific performance but awarding compensation/damages. The first appellate court however reversed the decree, granted specific performance and cancelled the sale deed in favour of Mr. Anant Lale. The second appeal and the special leave petition instituted by Anant Lale came to be dismissed in the year 2008 itself. This means in the year 2008 itself the decree cancelling the sale deed in favour of Anant Lale and directing him to restore the possession of the suit property in favour of the decree-holders attained finality right upto the level of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. The execution petition i.e. R.D. Application No. 81 of 2008, which the decree-holders had already instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Jaysingpur was therefore pursued by the decree-holders consequent upon the decree attaining finality. In the year 2015, during the pendency of such execution proceedings, Mr. Anant Lale expired. The petitioners who are the legal representatives of Anant Lale were brought on record in the year 2015 itself.

6. In the year 2016 the petitioners instituted RCS No. 229 of 2016 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Jaysingpur seeking for injunction simplicitor to restrain Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 i.e. the decree-holders from taking forcible possession of the suit property otherwise than by the due process of law.

7. The petitioners, after the institution of RCS No. 229 of 2016 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Jaysingpur, filed an application at Exhibit 65 in the execution petition – R.D. Application No. 81 of 2008 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Jaysingpur seeking a stay on the execution of the decree made in RCS No. 319 of 2000 until RCS No. 229 of 2016 is decided. The petitioners, in this application at Exhibit 65, invoked the provisions of Order XXI Rule 29 of the CPC. By the impugned order dated 3rd February 2017, the executing court i.e. the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Jaysingpur, has rejected the application at Exhibit 65. Hence, the present petition.

8. Mr. Arjunwadkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the executing court has misinterpreted the scope and import of Order XXI Rule 29 of the CPC. He submits that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 29 of the CPC provide that where a suit is pending in any court against the decree-holder, the executing court may, on such terms as to security or otherwise, as it thinks fit, stay the execution of the decree until such pending suit has been decided. He submits that the legislature has advisedly made no reference to the type of the suit which may be pending. He therefore submits that irrespective of the type of the suit, once it is established that the judgment debtor or the parties seeking through or under the judgment debtors have instituted a suit against the decree-holders, the executing court is obliged to stay the decree under execution under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 29 of the CPC.

9. Mr. Arjunwadkar submits that even though the legislature has employed expression 'may' in Order XXI R