A pending revision without a stay does not bar execution of an eviction decree.

The petitioners, judgment-debtors and tenants, challenged an order dated 17 June 2026 passed by the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, in Execution Petition No. 59 of 2019, whereby their request to adjourn execution of an eviction decree and the consequential issuance of a possession warrant were not accepted.

The eviction decree had been passed by the Appellate Court on 8 October 2018, while the petitioners’ Civil Revision Application No. 629 of 2018 challenging that decree remained pending before the High Court.

The petitioners relied on High Court orders dated 4 December 2018 and 8 May 2026 permitting them to seek adjournment before the executing court, subject to the application being decided in accordance with law.

No stay of execution or implementation of the eviction decree had been granted, and the petitioners had not filed an interim-relief application in the revision proceedings.

They invoked Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the executing court’s order and a stay of the possession warrant.

Whether the executing court erred in refusing to further adjourn execution of the eviction decree merely because the decree was under challenge in a pending civil revision application.

Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the executing court’s order in the absence of any stay against execution.

Whether execution of the eviction decree would render the pending revision proceedings infructuous or leave the petitioners without an effective remedy.

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, under which supervisory jurisdiction is exercised only where the subordinate court has committed a jurisdictional error, gross error of law, or a serious procedural irregularity.

It applied the settled principle that the mere pendency of a challenge to a decree does not operate as a stay of its execution; absent an express stay by a superior court, the executing court is not required to indefinitely defer execution.

The Court relied on Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs v. V. Rajamani, reported in 2025 (9) SCC 568, and the relevant Division Bench authority, for this principle.

It further applied Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which restitution may be granted if an executed decree is subsequently reversed or varied.

The High Court held that the orders dated 4 December 2018 and 8 May 2026 merely permitted the petitioners to submit an adjournment application and directed the executing court to decide it in accordance with law; they did not stay execution or mandate adjournment.

Since the eviction decree had remained operative, the execution petition had been pending since 2019, and no interim relief had been sought or obtained in the revision, the executing court was justified in refusing to delay the proceedings further.

The petitioners’ contention that dispossession would make the revision infructuous was rejected because restitution under Section 144 CPC would remain available if the decree were ultimately set aside.

Consequently, no gross error or jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 was established.

It held that the executing court was not bound to postpone execution merely because the eviction decree was challenged in a pending revision application, particularly in the absence of any stay order.

The petition under Article 227 was dismissed; the executing court’s order dated 17 June 2026 was confirmed, and no order as to costs was made.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the execution proceedings and would not prejudice the petitioners’ pending Civil Revision Application No. 629 of 2018, since the merits of the eviction decree had not been examined.