CRP 297/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deka, learned couns el appearing for the respondents. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged two orders, one dated 6th May, 2010 passed in MJ Case No.8/2007, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the present petitioners under Order 21 Rule 99 read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected and the other dated 7th June, 2010 passed on the petition No.1773 /2010 rejecting the prayer for stay the execution proceeding. Both these applic ations were filed in Title Execution Case No.11/2006 and were passed by the lear ned Executing Court. It appears that the order dated 6th May, 2010 passed in the application filed un der Order 21 Rule 99 amounts to a decree and, therefore, an appeal lies. By ord er dated 7th June, 2010, the learned Executing Court refused to stay further pro ceeding in Title Execution Case No.11/2006 having rejected the application filed under Order 21 Rule 99 filed by the petitioners. That being the position, the order dated 7th June, 2010 passed by the learned Ex ecuting Court is not interfered with as the petitioners could not demonstrate an y ground to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of I ndia, more so when by order dated 6th May, 2010 the petition filed by the presen t petitioners under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC has been dismissed. It would, however, not preclude the petitioners from approaching the appellate forum challenging t he order dated 6th May, 2010 and also praying for the interim order in such appe al, if so advised. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with the above observations. No costs.