Z.A. Haq, J.

1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. None for the respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No. 2602/2017 though served.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. These two petitions are disposed by common judgment as in both these petitions same order passed by the District Court is challenged.

4. Writ Petition No.7016/2018 is filed by the decree holder challenging the order passed by the District Court staying the execution of decree (award) passed by the Cooperative Court in Dispute No.200/1978. In Writ Petition No.2602/2017, the petitioner has challenged the condition imposed by the District Court requiring him to deposit Rs.15,000/- per month towards occupation charges, while granting stay as prayed for by the petitioner.

5. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.7016/2018 (hereinafter referred to as the decree holder) had filed Dispute No.200/1978 before the Cooperative Court praying that possession of the premises in question be handed over to him. The Cooperative Court passed an award on 27th April, 1981 in favour of the decree holder. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2602/2017 was not party to the Dispute No. 200/1978. The award passed by the Cooperative Court in Dispute No. 200/1978 was maintained up to the Supreme Court. The decree holder filed execution proceedings which came to be registered as R.D. No. 246/1986. The petitioner In Writ Petition No. 2602/2017 filed R.C.S. No.818/1986 seeking reliefs in the following terms:

“(i) Declare that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of Shop No.1 in Vijayanand Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Nagpur as a tenant/lessee and that he cannot be dispossessed by the defendants in execution of a warrant of possession in R.D. No. 246/86 as the plaintiff is not a party thereto.

(ii) Declare that the orders passed in R.D. No. 246/86 does not bind as the plaintiff is not a party in the said proceedings.

(iii) Grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disposing the plaintiff in execution proceeding No. R. D. No.246/86 or by any other method without joining the plaintiff as a party in the proceedings.

(iv) Stay the effect, operation and execution of the proceedings in R.D. No. 246/86 and restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff.

(v) Grant any other appropriate relief to the plaintiff expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

6. During pendency of R.C.S. No.818/1986, the execution proceedings i.e. R.D. No. 246/1986 filed by the decree holder were dismissed in default. This civil suit is dismissed by the trial Court by the judgment dated 4th May, 2013. The judgment and decree passed in R.C.S. No. 818/1986 is challenged by the petitioner before the District Court in appeal which is pending. After dismissal of the civil suit R.C.S. No. 818/1986, the decree holder filed execution proceedings which are registered as R.D. No. 110/2014. Initially, the decree holder prayed for execution of decree passed in R.C.S. No. 818/1986. Subsequently, the petitioner sought execution of award passed in Dispute No. 200/1978. After the decree holder filed these execution proceedings i.e. R.D. No. 110/2014, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the District Court praying that the proceedings of R.D. No.110/2014 be stayed.

The application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is decided by the impugned order. The learned District Judge has stayed the execution proceedings i.e. R.D. No.110/2014 on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.15,000/- per month towards occupation charges.

7. Though the litigation has checkered history, in these two petitions the only point which is required to be considered is:

Whether the District Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure can stay the execution of decree which is not subject matter of challenge in the appeal before the District Court?

8. The provisions of Order