Arun Kumar Jha, J. – The decree-holder/petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: –

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, for quashing the order dated 08.04.2021 passed by Learned Sub Judge 2nd, Kaimur (Bhabua)/ Learned Executing Court in Execution case No.03 of 2017 (Pappu Singh vs. Sheo Narayan Mallah and others) whereby the Learned court below has accepted the objection/petition filed by Respondent no.1/objector Under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. by which the Learned Court below has stayed the proceeding of Ex. Case no.03/2017 till determination of Right, title and possession of respondent no.1/objector.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, for directing the Learned Executing court to decide the Execution case No.03/207 filed by petitioner within short span of time and as well as within Time limit framed by larger bench of Hon’ble Apex court in Civil Appeal No.1659-1660 of 2021 (Rahul S Shah vs. Jitendra Kumar Gandhi and others) reported in 2021(3)BLJ 414 (SC) vide judgment dated 20.04.2021 by which Hon’ble Apex court has directed to the Executing courts to decide the execution case within six month.

(iii) For grant of any relief (s) the petitioner would be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case”.

2. The shorts facts of the case, as it appears from the record, are that Title Suit No.301/1999 was filed by the plaintiff/ decree-holder/petitioner and subsequent thereto Title Appeal No.24/2011 was filed which was decided vide judgment dated 09.11.2016 in favour of the decree-holder/petitioner. The Title Suit No.301/1999 was filed with a prayer that title and possession of plaintiff be declared over the suit land and in case the plaintiffs were found to be out of possession, the possession be restored through the process of the court. However, learned Sub Judge, 2nd, Kaimur at Bhabua dismissed the title suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2011 and 15.03.2011, respectively. Against the dismissal of the title suit, the plaintiff preferred title appeal before the learned District Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua and the said appeal was decreed in favour of the decree-holder/petitioner by the learned Additional District Judge-5, Kaimur at Bhabua vide judgment and decree dated 09.11.2016 and 21.11.2016, respectively whereby the learned first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court by declaring the title and possession of the decree-holder/petitioner over the suit land and further directed the defendant nos. 4 and 5 to remove the encroachment within one month. The said judgment and decree of the learned first appellate court remained unchallenged. After filing of the Execution Case No.03 of 2017, the objector/respondent no.1 filed objection under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) with averment that the land mentioned in the Execution Case No.03/2017 was purchased land of his grandmother, namely, Ramvarti Kuer, vide Sale Deed No.4328 dated 16.07.1943. Further averment was made that out of entire purchased land, the grandmother of objector/respondent no.1 has exchanged some part of land with Gajadhar Mallah vide Exchange Deed No.1294 dated 05.06.1944. However, the learned first appellate court disbelieved the existence and legality of Sale Deed dated 16.07.1943 in its judgment dated 09.11.2016 passed in Title Appeal No.24/2011. It also appears from the record that the objector/respondent no.1 claimed title and possession over Plot Nos.272, 273, 276, 277 and 278 on the basis of entry made in the municipal Khatiyan. Thereafter, the learned executing court heard both the sides and passed the order dated 08.04.2021 admitting the objections of the objector/respondent no.1 and stayed the execution proceeding. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Sub Judge, 2nd, Kaimur at Bhabua, the decree-holder/ petitioner has approached this Co