The court emphasized the need for timely action on appeals and upheld the Execution Court's order under Article 227, reaffirming limits on High Courts' supervisory power.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

The present order would dispose of two civil revision petitions.

2. CR-2760-2025 has been filed by the petitioner for seeking direction to the Ist Appellate Court to decide the pending civil appeal no.CA-130-2021 in a time bound manner.

3. CR-2756-2025 has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) vide which the objections filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor have been dismissed.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent had filed suit for declaration and mandatory injunction along with prayer of permanent injunction against the petitioner in the year 2018. Vide judgment dated 29.11.2021 after due contest, the decree was passed in favour of the respondent and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'The defendant is directed to hand over the possession of the suit property within 3 months of passing this judgment fail which the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed as per law. It is further made clear that this judgment does not have any effect on rights of any third party. Suit is hereby decreed with no order to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.'

5. An appeal against the said judgment was filed on 24.12.2021.

Surprisingly for a period of more than 3 years, no prayer was made for considering the stay application. The zimni order dated 26.11.2024 as well as 28.01.2025 would show that it is in fact the counsel for the petitioner (appellant before the Ist Appellate Court) who had sought adjournment. The said zimni orders are reproduced hereinbelow:-

'Present: Shri Pardeep Sharma Advocate for appellant/defendant.

Shri Mohinder Singh Advocate for respondent/plaintiff.

Trial court record received. Arguments not advanced. Adjournment sought by counsel for the appellant on the reason that he is busy in some other urgent case, so he could not prepared the present case. Heard. Request allowed. On request of counsel for the appellant, case is adjourned to 16.12.2024 for arguments. Trial court record be sent back and requisitioned one day prior to the date fixed.

Date of Order: 26.11.2024.'

'Present: Shri Pardeep Sharma Advocate for appellant/defendant.

Shri Mohinder Singh Advocate for respondent/plaintiff.

Trial court record received. Arguments not advanced. Adjournment sought by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant on the reason that he was out of station yesterday, so he could not prepared the present case. Heard. Request allowed. On request, case is adjourned for 18.02.2025 for arguments. Trial court record be sent back and requisitioned one day prior to the date fixed.

Date of Order: 28.01.2025.'

6. A perusal of the zimni order dated 18.03.2025, which is the second last zimni order annexed along with the present petition, would show that even on the said date, arguments were not addressed and an adjournment was sought by the learned counsel for the parties on the ground that they were not ready with the case and on joint request, the case was adjourned to 16.04.2025. On 16.04.2025, which is the last zimni order annexed along with the present petition, counsel for the present petitioner (appellant before the Ist Appellate Court) prayed for adjournment and the case was adjourned to 02.05.2025. Zimni orders dated 18.03.2025 and 16.04.2025 are reproduced hereinbelow:-

'Present: Shri Pardeep Sharma Advocate for appellant/defendant.

Shri Mohinder Singh Advocate for respondent/plaintiff.

Trial court record received. Arguments not advanced. Adjournment sought by learned counsel for the parties on the reason that they are not ready with the present case and requested that this c