CRP 415/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Heard Mr R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners, who are the judgment-debtors, have filed the present ap plication challenging order dated 1st November, 2011 passed by the learned Execu ting Court in Misc(J) Case No.96/2011, whereby and where- under the petition fi led by the present petitioners under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 of C PC praying for stay of further proceeding in Title Execution case no.1/2011 has been rejected. The respondent, as plaintiff had instituted TS no.13 of 2005 under Secti on 6 of the Specific Relief Act against the present petitioners as defendants. T he said suit was decreed after five years of its filing that is on 7.10.10. The respondent-plaintiff, thereafter, had filed Title Execution case no.1 of 2011 pr aying for execution of decree passed in Title Suit no.13/2005. At that stage, th e present petitioners, with a view to deprive the decree-holder of enjoyment of fruit of decree, filed an application praying for stay of execution proceeding o n the ground that another suit being TS no.51/2011 has been filed by the present petitioners, who were the defendants in TS no.13/2005, praying for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the land involved in TS no.13 of 2005 . An averment has also been made to the effect that there is no mention of any h ouse over the decreetal land, either in the plaint or at the schedule A thereof, and as such, decree cannot be executed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since Title Suit no.51 of 2011 has been filed by the judgment-debtors for declaration of right, title a nd interest, there is every likelihood of the said suit being decreed and as suc h, the learned court below ought to have stayed execution proceeding in Title Ex ecution case no.1/2011, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Such contention of the judgment-debtors cannot be accepted, as the respo ndent, who is the decree-holder, must be allowed to enjoy the fruit of the decre e passed in TS no.13 of 2005. In the event Title Suit no.51 of 2011 filed by the present petitioners is decreed, the petitioners are not remedyless, as they can file an application under Section 144 CPC for restitution of the possession of the suit property. The contention raised by the present petitioners before the l earned Executing Court that there being no mention about having any house over t he decreetal land the decree cannot be executed, has also been rightly rejected by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 1st of November, 2011, as the re spondent, being the decree-holder and decree for recovery of possession having b een passed under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, they must be put into possess ion of the suit property. That being the position, I do not find any merits in the present applica tion, so as to entertain the same in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence this application stands dismissed.