Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sidherth Verma, learned Counsel for contesting respondent No. 1. The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under: The contesting respondent No. 1 instituted a SCC suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioners. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing a written statement pleading therein that the property in dispute belong to one Gatman Singh who was the predecessor in interest or the petitioners and after his death it has devolved upon them. It was further pleaded that contesting respondent has no right, title or interest over the property in dispute and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 9.8.2004 decreed the suit. Revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Revisional Court vide judgment and order dated 15.7.2005. The petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59869 of 2005. This Court vide order dated 9.9.2005 dismissed the writ petition. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under: Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that as complicated question of title was involved hence the plaint should have been returned for filing before regular Civil Court under section 23 of PSCC Act for which an application had also been filed by the petitioners. In this regard the correct legal position is that JSCC in the suit for eviction by alleged landlord against alleged tenant is competent to decide the title incidentally. However, the said decision is subject to the result of regular suit as held by the Supreme Court in Shamim Akhtar v. Iqbal Ahmad : AIR 2001 SC 1 (Para 12) : 2001 (42) ALR 131 (SC). In view of this it is still open to the petitioners to file regular suit on the basis of title. If such a suit is filed findings in respect of title recorded by the Court below in the judgments challenged in the instant writ petition shall not be treated to be binding upon the parties or the regular Civil Court. For a period of three months the petitioners shall not be evicted.
(2.) AFTER dismissal of the writ petition the decree was put in execution by the contesting respondent No. 1 which was numbered as execution case No. 3 of 2005. The petitioner also filed a civil suit on the basis of title which was registered as original suit No. 370 of 2005. The petitioner also applied for grant of interim injunction. The Trial Court vide order dated 7.11.2005 issued notices under Order 39, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. On receiving of notice of the execution case the petitioners moved an application No. 12 -C under Order 21, Rule 29 of the C.P.C. for stay of the proceeding of the execution case on the ground that a original suit for title was pending. On 28.2.2006 which was the date fixed before the Executing Court an adjournment application was moved by the Counsel appearing for the petitioners on the ground that he would be out of station. The adjournment application was rejected by the Executing Court vide order dated 20.2.2006. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed a revision which was also dismissed vide order dated 9.3.2006. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid two orders. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the adjournment was sought by the Counsel on his personal ground which was wrongly rejected by the Executing Court solely on the ground that there was no stay order by any Court as such there is no reason for staying the execution proceeding. It has further been urged that Revisional Court wrongly dismissed the revision without considering that application No. 12C was rejected by the Executing Court without any opportunity of hearing.
(3.) IN reply it has been contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that the application under Order 21, Rule 29 was not at all maintainable and has been rejected by the Courts below. It has also been urged that adjournment application was only a device to delay the proceeding and the same was also rightly rejected by the Executing Court.;