D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) LEARNED senior counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners are the original Defendants in Title (Partition) Suit No. 86 of 1988, whereby, preliminary decree was drawn against which, the first appeal was preferred by the present Petitioners, which was dismissed and, thereafter, second appeal bearing S.A. No. 284 of 2002 has been preferred, which is pending before this Court and no stay has been granted by this Court. Moreover, against the final decree passed in Title (Partition) Suit No. 86 of 1988, Title Appeal No. 8 of 2008 has been preferred, wherein, delay condonation application has also been preferred and the same is pending before the lower appellate court i.e. District Judge, Bokaro.
(2.) IT is further submitted by learned senior counsel for the Petitioners that in an execution application, preferred by the original Plaintiffs, stay application was preferred, which was dismissed by the executing court and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred. It is also submitted by learned senior counsel for the Petitioners that let a suitable direction be given to the District Court, Bokaro to hear and dispose of, initially the delay condonation application in Title Appeal No. 8 of 2008 on merits and if it is allowed then stay application may also be ordered to be disposed of within stipulated time. This will suffice the purpose of the present Petitioners and till this, execution proceeding may not be proceeded ahead by the executing court.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, who has submitted that the Respondents are the original Plaintiffs and they have succeeded in Title (Partition) Suit No. 86 of 1988. Preliminary as well as final decree have also been passed in favour of the original Plaintiffs. First appeal preferred by the present Petitioners against preliminary decree was also dismissed and no stay has been granted in the second appeal, preferred by the present Petitioners, who are original Defendants. Nonetheless, it is fairly submitted by learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 that they have no much objection, if a direction is given to the District Court, Bokaro to hear the delay condonation application on merits in Title Appeal No. 8 of 2008.;