S.B.Writ Petition NO.7738/07 & S.B.Civil Second Stay Petition NO.2560/08 Shri Sai Nath Shiksha Prachar Samiti vs. The Civil Judge (SD), Merta & ors. Date of order: 7.3.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Vishal Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Sidhur for the respondent. ... Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of this Court dated 17.1.2008 and the trial court's order dated 8.2.2008. I do not find any justification for depriving the decree-holder from the amount deposited by the petitioner in the executing court in pursuance of the this Court's direction when petitioner's application for extension of time itself was dismissed by this Court on 17.1.2008. However, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that the amount if has not been paid to the decree holder, by now, the same be paid to the decree holder by the executing court after taking sufficient solvent security from the decree-holder respondent for refund of the amount in case the petitioner succeeds in the petition under Order 21 Rule 58, C.P.C. The executing court is also directed to decide the petition of the petitioner filed under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. expeditiously. The learned counsel for the petitioner also requested that in view of the above order, the writ petition itself can be disposed of, as now the objection raised by the petitioner in the executing court is likely to be decided in the light of the decision of this court to decide the matter expeditiously. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is just and appropriate in the facts of the case and the learned counsel for the respondent also has no objection in case writ petition itself is decided with the direction to the executing court to decide the petition of the petition filed under Order 21 Rule 58, C.P.C. In view of the above, the second stay petition is accordingly disposed of and for the reasons mentioned above, the main writ petition No.7738/07 is also disposed of with the direction that since the amount has been deposited by the petitioner, the executing court shall not proceed to auction the property of the petitioner, for which also the learned counsel for the respondent decree-holder has no objection in view of the deposit of the amount mentioned above. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.