CRP 193/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. G. P. Bhowmik, l earned counsel for the opposite party. Having obtained a decree in Title Suit No.8 of 2003, whereby the Court had decre ed the plaintiff/opposite party’s suit for specific performance of contract with direction to the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the suit, who are petitioners in t his revision, to execute requisite sale-deed, on presentation of the same for re gistration, on receiving the balance price of Rs.500/- from the plaintiff/opposi te party, the plaintiff/opposite party put the decree into execution, which gave rise to Title Execution Case No.6/2009. Aggrieved by the decree so obtained by the plaintiff/opposite party, the present petitioners, who were defendants in Ti tle Suit No.8/2003, have instituted a suit bearing Title Suit No.47/2009, wherei n they have contended that the decree, in Title Suit No.8/2003, has been obtaine d by fraud. In the suit aforementioned, i.e., Title Suit No.47/2009, the petitio ners had also filed an application seeking an order of injunction restraining th e opposite party from executing the decree. As the injunction application had remained pending, the petitioners filed a pet ition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in Title Execution Case N o.6/2009, seeking stay of the execution proceeding. This application gave rise t o Misc. (J) Case No.6/2009. On the ground that the decree, granted in Title Suit No.8/2003, until proved to have been obtained by fraud, cannot be stopped from execution, the learned executing Court refused to stay the execution proceeding by its order, dated 29.3.2010. Aggrieved by this order, dated 29.3.2010, the pet itioners have impugned the same in this revision. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners would make an application, under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC, seek ing stay of the decree granted against them in Title Suit No.8/2003 and, hence, this revision may be allowed to be withdrawn by them with liberty to make approp riate application in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this revi sion is dismissed on being withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to make app ropriate application, in terms of Order 21 Rule 29 CPC, in the Court of competen t jurisdiction. If such an application is made, the learned Court below shall co nsider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.