CRP 87/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.R. Bh attacharjee, learned counsel for the opposite party. A brief factual background would be necessary for the disposal of the instant pe tition. The petitioner herein, has instituted Title Suit No.53/98 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), No.1, Karimganj praying for a decree, inter alia for declaring the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.10/1984 and 92/87 to be null and void and inoperative in law. Alongwith the plaint, an applicat ion for ad interim application was filed as meanwhile, the aforementioned judgme nt and decree passed in T.S. No.10/84 had been put into execution in T. Executio n No.9/1997. The learned trial Court on 03.12.1998 granted ad interim injunctio n in the application therefor registered as Misc. Appeal No.31/2007. According to the petitioner, this order was vacated on 22.02.1999 against which it unsucce ssfully preferred MFA No.27/1999. Against the dismissal of appeal on 24.03.2009, the petitioner approached this Court with CRP No.2180/2009, which eventually w as withdrawn. Meanwhile, on an application filed under Order 21 Rule 29 of the CPC on 05.12.19 98 by the petitioner, the learned executing Court by an order passed on the same date stayed the proceedings of Title Execution Case No.9/1997 till the disposal of the T.S. No.53/1998. On 09.03.2010, the petitioner as judgment debtor filed an application for adjour nment of the hearing of the Title Execution No.9/97. The learned executing Cour t noticing that though time had been granted to the petitioner/judgment debtor, it had failed to bring any order from this Court in the aforementioned Civil Rev ision Petition (then pending) directed that the execution case be proceeded with fixing 25.03.2010. By the impugned order dated 19.03.2010, the learned executi ng Court thereafter rejected the petitioner’s application under Order 47 Rule 1 seeking the review of the order dated 09.03.2010. Its prayer for stay of the pr oceedings of the execution case having been rejected again on 20.03.2010, it is before this Court. In course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the parties has drawn the at tention of this Court to the order dated 11.08.2001, whereby the learned trial C ourt and the learned executing Court were directed to submit status reports with regard to the stage of the suit and the proceeding relating to the Misc. Applic ation No.1466/31 filed on 14.06.99 by the opposite party No.1/decree holder seek ing vacation of the order dated 05.12.1998 passed in Title Execution Case No.9/9 7. The reports have not yet been received. It is submitted at the Bar that the said application however has not yet been decided on merits. It is noticeable that the subject matter of the challenge in Misc. Appeal No.31/2007 and CRP No.2180/2009 are orders relatable to the prayer for injunction that was granted by the learned trial Court in T.S. No.53/98. T he order dated 05.12.98 passed by the learned executing Court though in conseque nce is identical is however distinctively different from the one initially grant ing injunction. The same, the order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the learned execu ting Court per se does not disclose any reason to vacate the order dated 05.12.1 998 passed by it earlier. This is more so, in view of the varying consideration s for which the two forums had passed the interim orders in the exigencies of th e circumstances. As it is, as on date the application filed by the opposite part y No.1/decree holder on 14.06.99 to vacate the order dated 05.12.98 passed in T. S. No.7/97 is pending consideration on merit by the learned executing Court. In the above view of the matter, it is construed expedient to dispose of this pe tition by requiring the learned executing Court to dispose of this application o n merits after hearing both the parties. The impugned orders dated 09.03.2010, 1 9.03.2010 and 20.03.2010 in this factual premise are interfered with. As the co ntroversy has a chequered and protracted background, the learned executing Court would proceed in the matter with utmost expedition. The petition stands dispose d. In the interest of justice and expeditious disposal, the learned executing Co urt is request to dispose of the application filed by the opposite party No.1/de cree holder within a period of one month herefrom. No costs.