Mere filing of an appeal against a decree does not operate as a stay of execution proceedings.

The petitioner (judgment-debtor) filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the 11th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, below Exh. 67 in Special Execution Petition No. 9 of 2011, whereby the Executing Court rejected the petitioner's application seeking stay of the execution proceedings.

The decree under execution was a consent decree passed by the Board of Nominees in 2007.

The Execution Petition was filed in 2011.

The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal only in 2024, i.e., with substantial delay, and his delay condonation application remained pending; consequently, the appeal had not been entertained on merits.

No stay against execution of the decree had been granted by the Appellate Court.

1. Whether mere pendency of an appeal (itself at the stage of delay condonation) before the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, without any stay order from the appellate forum, entitles the judgment-debtor to a stay of execution proceedings.

2. Whether the Executing Court committed any irregularity, perversity, or gross error warranting interference by the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution unless a specific order to that effect is passed by the appellate court.

Periyammal (dead) Through Lrs. v. V. Rajamani, (2025) 9 SCC 568: mandates that it is the legal duty of an Executing Court to execute the decree without delay, and that an Executing Court cannot on its own stay execution in the absence of an appellate stay.

Shanti T.D. v. Vishwanathan, (2019) 11 SCC 419: clarifies that the doctrine of merger applies only when the higher forum entertains the appeal and decides it on merits; absent such adjudication, no question of merger arises and the original decree remains independently enforceable.

An Executing Court cannot go behind the decree or examine its merits, and the judgment-debtor's proper remedy lies in seeking interim relief from the appellate forum.

The Court noted that the petitioner sought only reasonable time to pursue his appeal—but he had already enjoyed "more than reasonable time": the consent decree was of 2007, the execution petition of 2011, the appeal filed only in 2024 with substantial delay, and the present petition filed on 18.02.2026.

Since the appeal remained at the delay-condonation stage with no stay granted, the petitioner's submission that execution should be stayed or rejected was held to be "bereft of any legal basis," as an Executing Court cannot stay execution suo motu and is duty-bound to execute a subsisting decree without delay—in keeping with Periyammal.

The Executing Court had correctly reasoned that (i) the award/decree subsisted and was unstayed; (ii) under Shanti T.D. v. Vishwanathan, merger occurs only upon adjudication on merits by the higher forum, and since the appeal was not even entertained (delay application pending), no appellate decree existed and merger did not arise; and (iii) the Executing Court could not go behind the decree.

The Court found no perversity or gross error that would justify Article 227 interference, and observed that the petitioner's remedy lay before the appellate forum for interim relief.

Finding no merit in the petition, the Court rejected the Special Civil Application; consequently, the connected Civil Application (for interim relief) was disposed of as not surviving.