1 wp 4651.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4651 OF 2011 Ashok Rambhau Bombale .. Petitioner Versus Manjusha Vijaykumar Jaju .. Respondent Shri N. P. Bangar, Advocate for the Petitioner. The respondent is served. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 08 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the judgment debtor. The suit of the respondent for specific performance came to be decreed. The present respondent filed execution proceedings. The present petitioner filed an application to keep the order passed by the Executing Court to execute the sale deed in abeyance. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri Bangar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits 2 wp 4651.11 that the petitioner has already moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The respondent deliberately did not appear in the said proceeding for one and half year. The petitioner has already filed an application for stay of the execution of the judgment and decree in the said miscellaneous application, but as the respondent did not deliberately appear in the same, the orders could not be passed. The learned counsel relying on the provisions of Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure submits that the Executing Court has the powers to stay the execution for a reasonable time so as to enable the petitioner to avail of appropriate remedy. As such, till the decision on an application for setting aside ex-parte decree the execution proceedings are required to be stayed. 3. The provisions of Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable, if a party seeks reasonable time to enable the party to initiate an appropriate proceedings. In the present case, the petitioner has already filed an application for setting aside ex-parte decree and as per the contention of the petitioner, the petitioner has also filed an application for staying the execution of the said ex-parte judgment and decree. The same is filed about two years back. The remedy for the petitioner 3 wp 4651.11 is to prosecute the application for stay in the proceedings filed for setting aside ex-parte decree. The Executing Court would not have any power to stay the said process of execution. Even assuming Order XXI Rule 26 applies, still the execution is pending for almost three years and the present petitioner has also availed of remedy of filing an application for setting aside ex- parte decree. In the light of above the writ petition is sans merit, as such is dismissed. Needless to state the petitioner is at liberty to prosecute his remedy of an application for setting aside ex- parte decree expeditiously. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11