The power vested in the Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 26 C.P.C. to stay the execution of the decree is to be exercised only for a reasonable time and for the purpose of enabling the judgment-debtor to apply for stay before the Trial Court or the Appellate Court. If the judgment-debtor fails to approach the Trial Court or the Appellate Court seeking for stay of the execution within a reasonable time, the Executing Court cannot prolong the stay indefinitely and must reject/dismiss the application.

1. This matter was listed before me on 27.09.2013 and the same was ordered to be posted today under the caption 'for orders'. Today, when the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioner. Though the respondent was served with notice, she has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. However, her name is printed in the cause list.

2. The above civil revision petition is filed challenging the order of the Executing Court in refusing to stay the execution proceedings. The petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.469 of 1998. The respondent herein as the plaintiff filed the above said suit on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore for specific performance of an agreement of sale and for possession of the suit property. On 20.09.2000, the trial Court decreed the suit exparte. Thereafter, the decree holder filed E.P.No.339 of 2006 seeking for executing the said decree. In the said execution proceedings, the petitioner filed E.A.No.58 of 2010 under Order 21, Rule 26 C.P.C. seeking for stay of all further proceedings in the E.P. till the disposal of his application filed to set aside the exparte decree. The Executing Court rejected the application by holding that the execution proceedings cannot be stayed merely because the petitioner has filed the set aside petition along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay in filing such set aside petition.

3. It is seen from the materials placed before this Court that an exparte decree came to be passed against the petitioner in the above said suit on 25.10.2000. It is the contention of the decree holder that in pursuant to the execution petition, a sale deed was already executed and he had filed a petition for delivery of possession. It appears that at that stage, the petitioner has come forward with the present application seeking for stay of the execution proceedings.

4. It is seen that the exparte decree came to be passed as early as on 25.10.2000 and the application seeking for stay of the execution proceedings came to be filed by the petitioner only on 01.02.2010 i.e., nearly after ten years from the date of the exparte decree. Certainly, the conduct of the petitioner would show that he lacks bonafide. On the other hand, though the respondent obtained a decree on 25.10.2000, even after a period of ten years, she could not realise the fruits of the decree in view of the pendency of the execution proceedings for such a long number of years. Thus, it is seen that the petitioner is interested in dragging on the proceedings by one way or other. At any event, the Order 21 Rule 6 C.P.C. is only an enabling provision for the judgment debtor to approach the appellate court or to the court in which the decree was passed to seek for stay of the proceedings. Therefore, the scope under Order 21 Rule 6 C.P.C. is only to a limited extent for the executing court to grant the stay for a limited period and not to be extended continuously, as has been claimed by the petitioners in this case. I have already considered the scope of the above said provision in a decision reported in 2012 (3) MWN (Civil) 66, K.Lakshmiammal v. D.S. Nagalakshmi. At paragraph No.8 of the said decision, it is held as follows:

"8. From the perusal of the above provision under Order 21, Rule 26 of C.P.C., it could be seen that the Executing Court shall stay the execution of the decree for a reasonable time upon showing sufficient cause, to enable the judgment-debtor to apply for stay either before the Trial Court or before the Appellate Court. Thus, the power vested on the Executing Court under Order 21, Rule 26 C.P.C. is to be exercised only for a reasonable time and that too for the purpose of enabling the judgment-debtor to apply before the Trial Court or the Appellate Court seeking for stay of the Execution proceedings. It is nothing but granting a breathing time to the judgment-debtor to approach the appropriate forum and seek stay