The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Order 21, Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, the judgment debtors should be allowed reasonable time to apply to the Court by which the decree was passed to stay execution of the decree.

Rekha Mittal, J.

The present petition directs challenge against order dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur whereby objections filed by the petitioners/judgment debots have been dismissed.

2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of land, detailed in head note of the plaint that was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 10.9.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur. The respondents filed an application for execution of the decree and in the execution proceedings, warrants of possession were issued on the basis whereof the petitioners learnt about passing of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 10.9.2012. They filed an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree in October 2015 and the same is pending adjudication after framing of issues but the parties are yet to adduce their evidence. It is argued that the petitioners filed objections/reply in the execution proceedings with a prayer to stall the execution process till the application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree is decided by the Court. A serious prejudice shall be caused to the petitioners if the decree for possession is executed without deciding application of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree when otherwise there is every likelihood of the petitioners becoming successful in getting ex parte decree set aside and thereafter an opportunity to defend the suit. It is prayed that the execution proceedings are stayed till disposal of the application for setting aside ex parte decree. In support of his contention, he has referred to judgment of this Court Davinder Pal Singh and another v. Narinder Pal Singh and others 2016(3) RCR(Civil) 194. Further reference has been made to judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Guguloth Babu Rao and others v. Suraksha Chit Funds, Yellandu, Khammam District and another 2010 (6) Andh LD 489. In the alternative, it is submitted that execution of warrants of possession issued by the Court may be stayed by providing an opportunity to the petitioners to file an appropriate application for stay of execution proceedings in the proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") but some time bound direction may be issued to the trial court to decide the stay application.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioners, perused the paper book particularly the order impugned.

4. The Executing Court has dismissed the application for stay on the premise that the petitioners should have filed an application for stay of execution before the Court in which application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree is pending and not before the Executing Court.

5. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to judgment of this Court Davinder Pal Singh and another's case (Supra) but the said judgment does not deal with any provision in law or a precedent having binding force in order to uphold plea of the petitioners that execution proceedings are liable to be stayed merely because an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree has been filed by the judgment debtors.

6. In Guguloth Babu Rao and others' case (supra), a detailed reference has been made to the facts of the case wherein Court denied an opportunity to the first petitioner to appear as a witness despite the fact that he sought time till 8.6.2009 to arrange an amount of Rs. 15000/- imposed as costs on 1.6.2009 and eventually the suit was decreed on 8.6.2009 despite an application under Section 141 read with Section 151 CPC having been filed on 6.6.2009 for setting aside the order dated 1.6.2009 and reopen the case. The Court in concluding lines of para 7 of the judgment has observed that when the petitions filed to set aside ex parte judgment and decree are pending the courts should be slow in executing the ex