A pending appeal does not stay execution of an undisturbed decree absent an express stay.

The petitioners challenged an order refusing to stay execution proceedings arising from an ex parte decree dated 16 January 2001.

Their appeal against that decree had not resulted in its reversal, and a later suit seeking to challenge the decree was dismissed.

An appeal from the dismissal of that suit remained pending, but no stay of execution had been granted in that appeal.

The petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge the Executing Court’s refusal to stay the execution

Whether the Executing Court’s refusal to stay execution disclosed perversity or gross illegality warranting interference under Article 227

Whether the pending appeal against dismissal of the petitioners’ separate suit challenging the decree justified staying execution when no stay had been granted by the appellate court

The petition was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution, and the Court considered whether the Executing Court’s order involved perversity or gross illegality warranting supervisory interference

The Court reasoned that a decree not set aside or stayed remains capable of execution; the pendency of an appeal against dismissal of a separate suit challenging that decree does not, by itself, stay execution

The Court noted that the petitioners’ counsel identified no provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, supporting the requested stay

It cited Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs v. V. Rajamani, (2025) 9 SCC 568, in directing expeditious disposal of the execution proceeding

The decree underlying the execution proceeding had not been disturbed by the appellate court or the High Court, and the petitioners’ separate suit challenging it had been dismissed.

Although an appeal from that dismissal was pending, the appellate court had not stayed execution.

In the absence of an identified CPC provision supporting the requested stay, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Executing Court’s decision and no perversity or gross illegality in its order

It directed the Executing Court to dispose of Special Execution Petition No. 4 of 2008 as early as possible, preferably within two months of receiving the order