Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J.

1. This proceeding under Article 227 or the Constitution of India has been initiated for staying the Title Execution case No. 1(H) of 2012, now, pending in the Court of Munsiff, Shillong all the disposal of the Title Suit No. 26 (H) of 2002 in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Shillong which was preferred by the judgment debtor in the Title Execution case No. 1 (H) of 2012. It may be mentioned that the Title Suit No. 26(H) 2002 was dismissed for default and a proceeding under Rule 4 of Order 9 of the CPC has already been initiated for restoration of the dismissed suit which is waiting disposal. It may also be noted that the decree holder in the Title Execution case No. 1(H) of 2012 was the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 25 (H) of 1997 and the judgment debtor therein, viz., the Title Execution case No. 1(H) of 2012, was the defendant in Title Suit No. 25 (H) of 1997 who, as plaintiff, instituted the Title Suit No. 26 (H) of 2002 in the Court of Assistant District Judge seeking various relief against the defendant therein who, as stated above, was none other than the decree holder in Title Execution case No. 1(H) of 2012.

2. The facts, as it appears from the application of this proceeding and which are necessary for disposal of the proceeding in hand are that the respondent, herein, as plaintiff, has filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff Shillong seeking declaration of his right, title and interest over the land described therein as well as for recovery of such property. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 25(H) 1997. The property, so involved in Title Suit 25(H) 1997, would be described here-in-after as suit property.

3. On being served with summons of the proceeding, the defendant therein, who is the petitioner in the present proceeding, contested the same having filed written statement. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Munsiff decreed the suit land vide the judgment and order dated 09.07.03. The said decree was challenged before the Court of District Judge, Shillong on preferring an appeal which was registered as RFA (TCA) No. 4 (H) 2009.

4. The learned 1st Appellate Court after hearing the arguments, so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 14.05.04. Still being dissatisfied with the judgment, rendered by the learned District Judge, Shillong, the Appellant in RFA (TCA) No. 4(H) 2009, preferred 2nd appeal before this High Court which was registered as RSA No. 1 (SH) of 2004. However, the 2nd appeal too was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 28.09.09.

5. The matter was ultimately taken up to the Hon'ble Apex Court of the country by preferring a Special Leave Petition before it which was registered as SLP (Civil) No. 35670/2009. However, the SLP was summarily dismissed vide order dated 6.01.10. Thereafter, the plaintiff in Title Suit 25(H) 1997 instituted an Execution Case in the Court of Munsiff which was registered as Title Execution No. 1 (SH) of 2012 seeking execution of the decree which was ultimately affirmed by the Apex Court of the country vide SLP(Civil) No. 35670/2009.

6. During the pendency of the Title Suit 25(H) 1997, the petitioner in this revision proceeding also filed a suit vide Title Suit No. 26 of 2002 against the respondent herein (Plaintiff in title Suit No. 25(H) 1997) seeking, amongst other things, a decree requiring the defendant therein to execute a sale deed and to register the same in accordance with law transferring the suit property aforesaid in favour of plaintiff in Title Suit No. 26 of 2002. But the said suit was dismissed for default on 22.10.10.

7. After the dismissal of T.S. No. 26 of 2002, a petition was filed under Order-9 Rule- 4 read with Section 51 Cr.P.C. for restoration of the suit which was dismissed on 22.10.10 vide Misc. Case No. 93(H) of 2012 and same is, now, pending in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Shillong. It has been contended that there is every possibi