Pending set-aside applications do not automatically stay execution, though a time-limited stay may be granted.

The petitioners, judgment-debtors, challenged an order refusing to stay Execution Case No. 45 of 2023.

The underlying suit had resulted in an ex parte preliminary decree, followed by a final decree on 8 September 2021. The petitioners had filed CMA No. 78 of 2023 to set aside the preliminary decree and CMA No. 79 of 2023 to set aside the final decree; both applications remained pending. They sought a stay of execution until the CMAs were decided. The Executing Court held that the pending applications did not automatically stay execution, and that no stay order had been produced.

Before the High Court, petitioners argued that execution would render the CMAs infructuous and submitted that they would cooperate in their prompt disposal.

Whether the pendency of applications to set aside the ex parte preliminary and final decrees, without a separate stay order, justified staying execution until those applications were decided.

Whether, in the interests of justice, the Court should grant a time-limited stay of execution while directing the court hearing the CMAs to dispose of them within a stipulated period.

Order 21 Rule 26 CPC empowers the executing court, on sufficient cause, to stay execution for a reasonable period to enable the judgment-debtor to seek a stay or other appropriate order from the court that passed the decree or an appellate court.

The Court also relied on Periyammal v. V. Rajamani, 2025 INSC 329, and Rahul S. Saha v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418, in considering the prejudice caused by delaying a decree-holder’s ability to enjoy the fruits of a decree.

The Court did not treat the pending CMAs as automatically suspending the decrees or execution.

It noted that the CMAs had been filed after a long delay and that an indefinite stay would prejudice the decree-holders and risk further delay in execution, pending since 2023.

However, given counsel’s submission that the CMAs were ready for disposal and that the petitioners would cooperate, the Court considered a short, fixed-period stay appropriate while the applications were determined.

The Court directed the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balasore, to decide CMA Nos. 78 and 79 of 2023 by 30 November 2026 and stayed the proceedings in Execution Case No. 45 of 2023 only until that date.

The Executing Court was free to proceed in accordance with law after 30 November 2026; the opposite parties could seek modification or recall if material facts had been suppressed, causing them serious prejudice.