The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC in the context of staying the execution of a decree and the rights of the judgment debtor to appeal or move in revision against the decree.

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 22.02.2010 passed in E.P.No.59 of 2008 in O.S.No.145 of 2006 by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, this Civil Revision Petition is focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.145 of 2006 and obtained a decree for recovery of possession in respect of an immovable property as against the revision petitioner herein. Subsequently, the respondent filed E.P.No.59 of 2008 for enforcing the decree. In the meantime, the revision petitioner/defendant filed the appeal with the application to get the delay of 225 condoned and that application is still pending in the Sub Court, Perundurai. In the meanwhile, counter was filed by the revision petitioner herein before the Executing Court and after hearing both sides, the Executing Court ordered delivery. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds of revision would advance his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

The Executing Court failed to grant ample opportunity to the revision petitioner/judgment debtor to put forth his case. Two E.As were filed, one to get the matter reopened and another to adduce additional evidence, but those two E.As. along with E.P. were taken up together by the lower Court and by a common order, those matters were disposed of and delivery was ordered. The revision petitioner preferred appeal as against the decree passed in the suit with an application to get the delay of 225 days condoned in filing such appeal. It so happened that the Sub Court in which the appeal with the delay petition was filed was bifurcated, so to say the said application with the appeal was filed in the Sub Court, Erode, but subsequently on bifurcation, the matter concerned was transferred to the newly constituted Sub Court, Perundurai. They took time to transfer the bundles and in the meanwhile E.P. has been filed for the purpose of getting executed the decree and the E.P. Court also without adhering to Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC simply dismissed the application.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder would put forth and set forth his arguments, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

A plain reading of the order of the Executing Court would display and demonstrate that nearly three months and a half was taken by the revision petitioner to argue the E.P. The E.P. itself was filed within two years from the date of the decree. The Executing Court had no right at all to stay in the facts and circumstances of the case the decree, as per Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC and correctly the Executing Court rejected the plea of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor in seeking stay. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of the revision.

6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality on the part of the Executing court in allegedly invoking Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC?

7. Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

"26. When Court may stay execution.- (1) 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 execution had been made thereto. .. .. .. "

A mere poring over and perusal of that provisio