An appeal does not operate as a stay of proceedings without an explicit order; execution of judgments can proceed in absence of a stay, reaffirming judicial hierarchies and processes.

ORDER :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

1. By this application, the applicants – original defendants, have prayed that orders dated 18.12.2024, 29.01.2025 and 30.01.2025, be declared as illegal and having been passed overreaching the powers of this Court. It is also prayed that the possession of the disputed land be ordered to be handed over to the applicants – original defendants immediately by drawing panchanama and appointing the Court Commissioner. Coupled with further prayer that the registered sale deed dated 21.01.2025, executed during the pendency of the appeal in favour of the respondents – original plaintiffs be cancelled.

2. Mr P. M. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the applicants – original defendants, has submitted that the present application was necessitated owing to the orders passed in execution proceedings being Special Execution application no.17 of 2022 filed by the original plaintiffs. It is submitted that the Special Civil Suit no.344 of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit”) was filed which has been decreed vide judgment dated 24.01.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara whereby, the defendants have been directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs, are directed to pay the remainder amount to the defendants.

2.1 It is submitted that the impugned judgment is challenged in the captioned appeal immediately. Owing to certain technical wantings it was not registered. After the registration, the civil application seeking condonation of delay, was allowed by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2023 and thereafter, in the first appeal, this Court, was kind enough to direct the Registry to call for the Record and Proceedings by passing an order dated 13.03.2023. It is submitted that the Record and Proceedings, were received by this Court and therefore, it is difficult to fathom as to how and which record the learned Judge has referred to while passing the orders. What record could have been perused and considered by the learned Judge is not clear. It is next submitted that that vide order dated 12.04.2023, this Court, was kind enough to admit the appeal. Since there was some proposal by the respondents, the matter was adjourned from time to time. On 05.12.2023, this Court, has passed an order recording the statement of learned advocate appearing for the appellants - original defendants that the appellants – original defendants are not willing to alienate property in any manner. When this Court, has admitted the mater and the statement on behalf of the appellants – original defendants was recorded, the original plaintiffs could not have filed application seeking execution of the judgment and at the same time, the trial Court ought not to have entertained the execution proceedings. It is submitted that disregarding the pendency of the appeal and the order of admission passed by this Court, the trial court, on 11.08.2023 passed an order to produce the draft sale deed which was produced on 07.10.2023, followed by public notice on 10.05.2024. It is submitted that despite the fact that one of the defendants passed away, no steps were taken for bringing the heirs on the record. The matter was heard and was kept on 18.12.2024 and the trial court, issued the commission letter and the matter, thereafter, was kept in the month of January 2025. Steps were taken and ultimately, on 21.01.2025, registered sale deed came to be executed by the Court Commissioner in favour of the original plaintiffs and physical possession of the land was handed over. It is thereafter, that the panchnama was drawn. From the record, it emerges that twice the possession was handed over of the land in question