Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dt. 26.7.14 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 41/14, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners under Order XXXXI Rule 5 C.P.C., seeking stay on execution of decree appealed against, stands rejected. The relevant facts are that Smt. Kulveer Kaur and Lakhveer Kaur, the respondents No. 1 & 2 herein, preferred a suit for declaring the adoption deed dt. 2.11.2000 as null and void, whereby the petitioner -Dilbag Singh was adopted by Sukhbansh Singh and Surendra Kaur. The suit preferred was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dt. 10.7.14. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur accompanied by a stay petition under Order XXXXI Rule 5 C.P.C. The application was contested by the respondents by filing a reply thereto.
(2.) AFTER due consideration, the application preferred by the petitioners under Order XXXXI Rule 5 stands rejected by the appellate Court. Hence, this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that appellate Court has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners on the ground that yet another suit has been filed by the petitioners before the Sub Divisional Officer under Sec. 53 and 88 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Learned counsel submitted that the said suit was filed by the petitioners for declaration and partition based on separate cause of action and therefore, the stay prayed for could not have been declined by the Court for this reason. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents are alienating the disputed land pending disposal of the appeal and the status of the land in the revenue record may also be changed and therefore, if the interim relief prayed for is not granted, the entire purpose of filing the appeal shall stand frustrated.
(3.) ON the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the adoption deed dt. 2.11.2000 having been declared null and void by the trial Court, the petitioners cannot claim any right over the property in question and therefore, the Court below has committed no error in arriving at the finding that the petitioners have no prima facie in their favour. Learned counsel submitted that apart from the revenue suit, an application was preferred by the petitioners under Sec. 372 of Indian Succession Act before the Court of competent jurisdiction, which was later permitted to be withdrawn by the Court on payment of costs Rs. 8,000/ - and therefore, even otherwise, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents undertake not to transfer or alienate the land in question in any manner, pending disposal of the appeal by the appellate Court.;