The main legal point established in the judgment is that applications seeking stay of execution and intervention in execution proceedings must be maintainable under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, and the alleged rights of the objectors must be finally concluded.

JUDGMENT :

R.B. Deo, J.

1. The petitioners are assailing the orders dated 07-2-2020 rendered by the learned 9th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati in Regular Darkhast 42/2013 whereby the application preferred by the petitioners-objectors seeking stay of the execution proceedings, and the order dated 07-2-2020 whereby the application under Order XXI Rule 101 read with Section 151 of the Code are rejected.

2. Respondent 1-Arvind Damodhar Fiske instituted Regular Civil Suit 128/2012 seeking specific performance of contract. The defendant was Suresh Narayanrao Bhakte. The suit was decreed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amravati on 14-2-2013. Respondent 1 initiated execution proceedings. Respondent 2-original defendant preferred appeal challenging the judgment and decree of specific performance which was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, which was rejected by the appellate Court. The defendant preferred Second Appeal 203/2019, which came to be dismissed by the High Court.

3. It is not in dispute that in view of the judgment and decree of specific performance, which has attained finality, the sale-deed of the suit property is executed in favour of respondent 1-decree holder by the Court Commissioner. The petitioners herein, however, preferred an application Exhibit 33 seeking permission to intervene in the execution proceedings and for stay to the execution. The said application dated 30-1-2017 avers that the petitioners have instituted separate suit against the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor seeking cancellation of the sale-deed executed in favour of the decree-holder by the Court Commissioner. On such premise, the petitioners sought relief which is noted supra.

4. The executing Court observed that the sale-deed is executed in favour of the decree-holder by the Court Commissioner. It is further noted that the subject property was bequeathed in favour of the judgment-debtor by his father, and was, therefore, his separate property. The prayer for stay of the execution was considered thus:

"9. Order XXI Rule 26 which speak that the court to which a decree has been sent for execution shall, upon, sufficient cause being shown, stay, the execution of such decree for a reasonable time, to enable the judgment-debtor to apply to the court by which the decree was passed, or to any court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution thereof, for an order to stay execution, or for any other order relating to the decree or execution which might have been made by such court of first instance or appellate court if execution had been issued thereby, or if application for had been made thereto.

10. From the plain reading of said provisions it is crystal clear that the said provision is enacted to enable the J.D. to apply in the court which the decree for reasonable time, to enable judgment debtor to apply to the court by which the decree was passed, or to any court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree and execution thereof, for an order to stay execution or for any other order relating to execution of decree which might have been any such court first if execution had been issued, application for execution had been made thereto.

11. Here the case at hand, I have earlier observed that the order and decree passed by C.J. (J.D.) in R.C.S. No. 128/2012 original defendant. It is to be noted that the present applicant is not J.D. or party defendant to the said original proceeding.

12. Further Order XXI Rule 29 of C.P.C. speaks about stay of execution pending suit between decree holder and judgment debtor. Here, the case at hand, it is undisputed fact there is no suit pending between D.H. and J.D.

13. Thus, considering the reasons the present application is not maintainable in view of Order XXI Rule 26 and Rule 29 of C.P.C. Hence, the present application is devoid of merit and deserved to be rejected. Thus, in the result I pass following order."

5. It appears