IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.227 of 2007 ---- 1. M/S Trade Link, Near Punjab National Bank, Maharaj Ganj, P.O.+P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan, through its Proprietor Shailesh Kumar. 2. Mr. Shailesh Kumar, son of Vijay Kumar, resident of Mohalla- Maharajganj, P.O.+ P.S. Maharaj Ganj, District-Siwan, Proprietor of M/s Trade Link, Near Punjab National Bank, Maharaj Ganj, District-Siwan. -- Defendants- Judgement Debtor-Petitioners. Versus Parle Gee Biscuits (Private) Limited Company, having its registered office at Nirlon House, 254-B, Annie Besant Road, Mumbai and working at Delhi-Rohtak Road, Village –Sankhol, Tehsil, Behadur Garh, District-Jhajjar, Haryana through its Account Officer Sri S.N.Verma. -- Plaintiff-Decree holder-Opposite Party. ----- For the petitioners : Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For the opposite party: None. ---- 02. 08.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendants- judgment debtors-petitioners challenging order dated 01.12.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge VII, Siwan rejected their prayer to stay further proceeding of Execution Case No. 01 of 2005 under the provision of Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.141 of 2001 which was filed by sole plaintiff-decree holder-opposite party for recovery of the amount from the defendants which was payable by them and also for interest and consequential reliefs. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 23.10.2002 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bahadurgarh, Hariyana, whereafter the aforesaid Execution Case No.01 of 2005 was filed by the decree holder which is pending before the learned Subordinate Judge VII, Siwan. - 2 - 4. It further transpires that defendants-petitioners filed Miscellaneous Case No.13 of 2006 under the provision of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte decree and the said miscellaneous case is also pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bahadurgah, Hariyana and although about three years have elapsed, it has not yet been disposed of. 5. From the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the judgment debtor had appeared in the execution case on 06.07.2006 and sufficient time was given to him for bringing an order of stay from the trial court, but although several months passed, he could not bring any such order. Furthermore, the learned court below has considered the respective stands of the parties and the material on record and thereafter rightly came to the conclusion that the prayer for stay of the execution case was not at all tenable in law and hence the aforesaid application was rejected by the impugned order. 6. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)