IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the petitioner to establish a sufficient cause to seek a stay of the decree under Order XXI, Rule 29, and the presumption in favor of a registered settlement deed.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.27/2021 arising from the judgment and decree in O.S. No.465/2015 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kochi. He is aggrieved by Exts.P11, P14 and P16 orders of the learned Munsiff. Ext.P11 order allowed an application preferred by the decree holder to depute an Amin to break open the lock, so as to handover the possession of the subject shop room to the respondent/decree holder. Against Ext.P11 order, a review petition was preferred vide Ext.P12. However, the same was dismissed vide Ext.P14. Simultaneous with the review petition, an application for stay of execution of the decree was also preferred, which was dismissed vide Ext.P16.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ judgment debtor and the respondent/decree holder.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit which was decreed, O.S.No.465/2015, was preceded by another suit, O.S.No.133/2015, the plaint of which is produced as Ext.P7. It was also pointed out that an order of injunction in recognition of the rights of the petitioner herein was passed, vide Ext.P8. The suit, which was decreed and which is sought to be executed, was filed subsequently. In the fitness of things, an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to have been filed, which was not done, with the result, the subsequent suit, O.S.No.465/2015 was decreed, allowing fixation of boundary and directing eviction of the petitioner from the scheduled shop room. Learned counsel submitted that, going by the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the execution court was obligated to stay the execution proceedings until a decision is rendered in the suit, O.S.No.133/2015. The requirements in Order XXI, Rule 29 are satisfied, the impact of which is not considered in Exts.P11, P14 and P16 orders. Learned counsel relied upon a three Judges Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaukat Hussain @ Ali Akram v. Smt.Bhuneshwari Devi (dead) by Lrs & Ors. [(1972) 2 SCC 731] in support of his arguments.

4. Per contra, the above submissions were seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. It was urged that all the contentions, which are taken in the first suit, have also been taken in the subsequent suit, which was decreed. The contentions urged by the petitioner herein in the suit stands dismissed and repelled by the trial court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, as also, by this Court, vide Ext.P4 judgment. It was also submitted that vacant possession of the shop room has already been obtained in execution of the decree and all what remains is the fixation of boundary. Learned counsel would submit that Order XX1, Rule 29 does not enable an automatic stay of the execution proceedings and going by the binding precedents, the court may have to be very cautious and slow in invoking the provisions under Order XXI, Rule 29. It was also brought to the notice of the court that under the guise of Order XXI, Rule 29, the fruits of the decree shall not be denied to the decree holder. Learned counsel relied on the following decisions in this regard: (i) Judhistir Jena v. Surendra Mohanty [AIR 1969 Ori. 233] (ii) Krishnan Namboodiri v. Unnikrishnan Namboodiri [1988 (2) KLT 380] (iii) Sreekumary v. Thankappan Pillai [2023 (6) KHC 76] (iv) Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir & Others [AIR 1982 SC 686], etc. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the impact of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is also liable to be considered, since the suit pending adjudication will be hit by the principles of res- judicata. Yet another aspect highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the suit for cancellation of a settlement deed is not maintainable at the instance of a person like the present petitioner, since he is not a party to the said document. A person, who is not party to the document can only seek a declaration, coupled with a relief to se