The court upheld that non-parties to a decree lack standing to challenge execution unless sufficient grounds are established.

1. Heard Mrs. Sujata Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

2. Both the revision petitions are at the behest of the same petitioners who are admittedly non - party to the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.63 of 2011 dated 20.11.2012 in respect of which Execution (T) No.08 of 2018 is pending before the learned Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura.

3. In CRP No.99 of 2024, petitioners have sought to challenge the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Executing Court whereby the learned Executing Court has appointed a Survey Commissioner and directed the decree holder to submit requisite fees. It has also directed the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala to furnish information regarding expenses for deputation of police personnel and the Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation for furnishing information regarding cost to be incurred in demolition of the building constructed over the suit land. In CRP No.105 of 2024, the order dated 06.07.2024 whereby the petition under Order XXI R.26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC, for short) filed by the petitioners was rejected is under challenge.

4. Be it noted here that earlier the petitioners had filed an application under S.47 read with S.151 of CPC on 29.11.2021 in which the learned Executing Court had passed an order of stay on 02.12.2021. That petition was finally rejected by order dated 13.12.2023. That was made subject matter of CRP No.13 of 2024 before this Court. Vide order dated 01.03.2024 passed in CRP No.13 of 2024 (Annexure - 26 to CRP No.99 of 2024), the said petition was dismissed as not pressed after some arguments by learned counsel for the petitioners in order to pursue the restoration application of the application made under Order XXI R.97, R.98 and R.101 read with S.151 of CPC which was dismissed for default on 21.01.2023. In the restoration petition, respondents have reportedly appeared upon summons but the application under Order XXI R.97, R.98 and R.101 read with S.151 of CPC has not yet been restored. In the above circumstances, petitioners have laid a challenge to the order dated 06.07.2024 whereby their application under Order XXI R.26 of CPC was rejected by filing the revision petition (CRP No.105 of 2024) only on 04.11.2024 when the learned Executing Court had appointed a Survey Commissioner vide order dated 27.09.2024 and also issued directions upon the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala and Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation as indicated above.

5. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court in exercise of the powers under Art.227 of the Constitution of India may stay the execution of the decree as on part of the suit land, some of the structures of petitioners' building are situate. Grave and irreparable injury would result if the judgment and decree is executed in the meantime till the application under Order XXI R.97, R.98 and R.101 read with S.151 of the CPC is decided.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and taken note of the relevant dates and material facts placed from record. In order to deal with the contention of the petitioners, it is important to refer to the provisions of Order XXI R.26 of the CPC which reads as under:

"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 ord