The court has the discretion to stay the proceedings in the execution case until the disposal of the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 2.1.2010 passed in Execution Case No. 2 of 2009 by the opposite party No.2, whereby the application for stay of the execution proceedings (C-9) has been rejected.

3. Brief facts, giving rise to the instant writ petition, are that opposite party No.3 has filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent, which was numbered as S.C.C. Suit No. 18 of 1997 against the petitioner. Notice was issued and in reply thereof, the petitioner filed his written statement. During the pendency of the said suit, opposite party No.3-landlord filed an application for granting permission to withdraw the deposited rent, to which objection has been filed by the petitioner. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, rejected the application of the opposite party No.3 by the order dated 28.3.2001.

4. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 28.3.2001, the opposite party No.3 filed a revision, which was numbered as Civil Revision No. 59 of 2001. The revisional Court, vide order dated 17.1.2002, while allowing the revision, set-aside the order dated 28.3.2001. Against the order dated 17.1.2002, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, which was numbered as writ petition No. 45 (RC) of 2002. This Court, vide order dated 7.3.2002, stayed the operation of the order dated 17.1.2002. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed in default on 30.1.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for recall of the order dated 30.1.2006. Thereafter, this Court, vide order dated 29.3.2008, restored the aforesaid writ petition and interim order was also restored. The petitioner after getting the certified copy of the order dated 29.3.2008 has served the same to the Reader of the opposite party No.2 on 2.5.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner become seriously ill and he could not reach in the Court premises. Later on, he came to know that SCC Suit No. 18 of 1997 was decided ex parte by he order dated 1.12.2008. Immediately thereafter, he moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recall of the ex parte order dated 1.12.2008. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2, vide order dated 15.5.2009, rejected the petitioner's application.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed another writ petition, which was numbered as writ petition No. 4128 of 2009 (MS). This Court, vide order dated 31.7.2009, disposed of the writ petition finally with a direction to the petitioner to file a revision before the appropriate Court. In pursuant thereof, the petitioner has filed a revision along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision before the opposite party No.1 on 22.9.2009, challenging therein the order dated 1.12.2008 and 15.5.2009, which was registered as Revision No. 152/74/09. Notice was issued and in response thereof, the opposite party No.3 filed his objection against the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. During the pendency of the said revision, the opposite party No.3 filed an execution case, which was registered as Execution Case No. 2 of 2009, in which, notice was issued and in response thereof, the petitioner appeared and filed his objection. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2, vide order dated 2.1.2010, while rejecting the petitioner's application, held that mere pendency of the appeal, the execution proceedings cannot be stayed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

6. This Court, while entertaining the instant writ petition, vide order dated 5.2.2010, stayed the proceedings in Execution Case No. 2 of 2009.

7. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the order passed in execution proceedings, which has been initiated b