^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR PETITIONERS/: (Applicants) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.1920 of 2011 1. Smt. Vinita Gautam wd/o Late Shyam Bihari Gautam 2. Hind Gautam s/o Late Shyam Bihari Gautam, (Minor) through natural guardian mother Smt. Vinita Gautam Both residents of village Bargawa Thana Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. Versus RESPONDENT/: Executive Engineer, Power Works Department Bh/S, Pendraroad Division Pendraroad, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. (Non-applicant) {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (28-9-2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 14-1-2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Pendra Road in Execution Case No.lB/2007 whereby the trial Court has stayed the execution till the decision on the application filed on behalf of the respondent herein under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the order/judgment passed ex parte. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and copies of other orders and judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court is competent to grant stay for a reasonable time to enable the judgment-debtor to apply to the Court by which the decree was passed, or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution thereof, in terms of Rurte 26 of Order 21 of the CPC, but the executing court has granted absolute stay for which it is not competent. 4. The order impugned reveals that the application for setting aside the ex parte proceeding under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC and the aforesaid execution both are pending before the same Court in two different proceedings. In these circumstances, the executing Court was competent 2^ to stay the execution for a reasonable period to enable the judgment-debtor for obtaining stay from the Court which has passed the decree or from the appellate Court. As per the order impugned, the respondent herein has also filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. In these circumstances, the executing Court was under obligation to provide some reasonable time and as a Court in the application pending before it under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, the Court was competent to pass absolute stay, but instead of passing any such order, the executing Court has passed the order of stay in the execution proceeding which is not just. 5. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with the following order "that the aforesaid order staying execution shall continue for next sixty days, if during the aforesaid period the execution is stayed in the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, such stay shall become operative in that proceeding". 6. No order as to costs. Sd<- T.P. Sharma Judge