A pending restoration petition does not justify staying execution of an old decree.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 12 August 2026 in Execution No. 19/2018. That order directed the Tahsildar/ADLR to assist the Surveyor in measuring the allegedly encroached suit property, directed police aid for execution of the delivery warrant, and rejected the petitioners’ application under Order XXI Rule 26 CPC.

The execution proceedings arose from a decree in O.S. No. 103/1997. Following remand and a decree dated 10 July 2017, the petitioners’ appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Their subsequent applications to restore the appeal and the proceeding seeking restoration of Civil Misc. No. 4/2022 had also been dismissed or remained pending; Civil Misc. No. 16/2025 was pending when this writ petition was heard.

1. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the executing court’s order rejecting the petitioners’ application under Order XXI Rule 26 CPC and facilitating execution of the decree.

2. Whether the petitioners’ pending restoration proceeding justified staying execution, or whether they should instead seek its expeditious disposal.

Order XXI Rule 26 CPC concerns the stay of execution in the circumstances provided by that rule; Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent powers.

The High Court considered its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in reviewing the executing court’s order.

It held that, where a restoration proceeding remains pending, the appropriate remedy is to seek its expeditious disposal rather than stay execution of a decree arising from a suit instituted in 1997.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ challenge to the decree had not resulted in a pending appeal: the appeal and the first restoration proceeding had been dismissed for non-prosecution, while Civil Misc. No. 16/2025 sought restoration and remained pending.

Given that procedural history and the age of the underlying suit, the Court found no justification to halt execution while that restoration application was pending. It considered expeditious disposal of the pending proceeding the appropriate course.

It directed the Trial Court to dispose of Civil Misc. No. 16/2025 expeditiously and, in any event, within six months from receipt of a copy of the order.