Heard on I.A. No.20069/2026, an application under Section 151 of CPC read with Rule 30-A of Chapter-2 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008.

2 . Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners, in addition to the facts and grounds mentioned in the application, submits that the petitioners have assailed the execution proceedings pending before the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Nowgaun, District Chhatarpur (M.P.). The matter was deliberated before this Court on 11.08.2026 and the petition was dismissed. The Executing Court has issued the warrant for possession and the authorities are directed to execute the warrant. The petitioners propose to file Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court assailing the order of this Court therefore, the execution proceedings be stayed for a period of 30 days to facilitate the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court.

3. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.(S)3533/2025 Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited vs. Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and Another regarding grant of stay. However, learned counsel fairly stated that no SLP is filed before the Supreme Court till date, rather, filing of SLP is under process.

4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, referring to Rule 30-A of Chapter-2 of the M.P. High Court Rules, contends that there is no order of this Court directing any action to be taken within a specific time therefore, the request is not covered by the aforesaid rule. This Court has passed the final order therefore, the Court is rendered functus officio. The provisions contained under Section 151 of CPC cannot be pressed into service to facilitate the stay of execution proceedings despite final orders of this Court approving the validity of proceedings.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Rule 30-A of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 reads as under :-

“30.A. An application for recall/modification/clarification of an order/ judgment or extension of time, supported by an affidavit and with documents, if any, shall be registered as an I.A.(Interlocutory application) in the main case.”

7. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed ad-interim stay vide order dated 10.06.2013 staying the operation of the order dated 06.04.2013 passed in Execution Proceedings No.30/74-05. Ad-interim stay order was vacated vide order dated 16.06.2025. Thus, there was no stay order operational in the matter after 16.06.2025. Hence, the benefit of law laid down in the case of Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited (supra) is not available to the petitioner.

8. This Court has considered the legality of the order dated 06.04.2013 passed by the Executing Court, i.e., First Civil Judge, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur and affirmed it therefore, no case is made out for grant of any further stay on the execution proceedings.

9. Consequently, I.A. No. 20069/2026 filed for post decisional hearing and stay is rejected.