 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Civil Revision Application No. 115 of 2008 (Rahimshah Roshansha Muslaman Vs. Mohd. Nisar s/o Ab. Gaffar Kureshi & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, Adv. for the applicant. Mr. V.M. Deshpande, Adv. for R- 1 to 9. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 10 th February, 2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this civil revision application, the applicant challenges the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Chandur Bazar, on 17th of January, 2008 and 5th of July 2008, rejecting the applications filed by the revision applicant. The applicant had filed an application under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that the applicant was a co-owner of the suit land. The applicant had also filed another application/ objection for staying the execution proceedings. Said applications were, however, rejected by  the orders dated 17/1/2008 and 5/7/2008. It was the case of the applicant in the application that the house property which was the subject matter of the execution proceedings was the ancestral property standing in the name of the father of the applicant. According to the applicant, after the death of his father, the applicant also became the owner of the house property. It was stated in the applications that he was not made a party to the Regular Civil Suit No. 50/1997 filed by the decree-holder against his brother and hence the decree was not binding on him. It was also stated by the applicant before the executing Court that he had filed a suit seeking a declaration and perpetual injunction in regard to the house property which was the subject matter of the execution proceedings. The applicant sought stay to the execution proceedings till the Regular Civil Suit No. 51/2008 filed by him, was decided. The executing Court found that the applicant could have very well ventilated his grievance by filing a separate suit for the relief of ownership. Since the revision applicant had  already filed a suit for grant of declaration and perpetual injunction in regard to the suit property which was a subject matter of the execution proceedings also, the executing Court rightly held that it was not necessary to stay the execution proceedings till the Regular Civil Suit No. 51/2008 was decided by the trial Court. The executing Court also rightly observed that the applications were filed by the revision applicant to prolong the execution proceedings as the judgment in Regular Civil Suit No. 50/1997 had attained finality and the objection filed by the judgment-debtor under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also decided by the executing Court on 14/4/2007. After the lapse of some time, the brother of the judgment-debtor i.e. the present revision applicant had filed the application with a plea that he was the co-owner of the suit property. The orders cannot be said to be unjust or improper, specially in view of the fact that a civil suit filed by the revision applicant for grant of declaration and permanent  injunction is pending before the Civil Court and the lis between the decree-holder and the present revision applicant could be decided in those proceedings. The executing Court had not committed any error in holding that the execution proceedings were not liable to be stayed till the Regular Civil Suit No. 50/2008 was decided. The judgment reported in 2008(1) MhLJ 340 and relied on by the counsel for the applicant, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case, as in the instant case, the revision applicant has himself filed a regular civil suit in the year 2008 for a declaration and permanent injunction. In the result, the civil revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP