Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14312 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1201 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dashrath Lal And 4 Others Respondent :- Uma Kant And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- Alok Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Alok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.07.2013 whereby the application filed by the petitioners as a judgment debtor for staying the execution under Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC was rejected as well as the revisional order dated 04.01.2025 whereby the revision was also dismissed. 3. The facts that emerge are that a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff in Suit No.336 of 1976. The said decree was affirmed till the second appellate stage. After the decree was put to execution, an injunction application was filed on the ground that another suit was filed in which the judgment debtor was a defendant and in which the injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff of the said suit. The said application under Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC is on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the consolidation proceedings, a part area in which the decree was passed fell in the share of the judgment debtor. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents denies the said and states that on the basis of wrong averments, certain entries were got created through the consolidation authorities, however, the revision was pending. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that no revision as was pleaded in the written submission filed in the subsequent Suit No.153 of 2008 is pending. 7. Be that as it may, in Suit No.153 of 2008 also there is no prayer at the instance of the judgment debtor seeking any rights of declaration; no such prayer has been made in the application under Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC also. Merely because the subsequent Suit No.153 of 2008 is filed, the same would not give the benefit which flow from Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC as no relief has been sought by the judgment debtor in the said suit. 8. I do not see any reason to interfere with the two impugned orders. As the execution is pending since 2000, in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court dated 06.03.2025 in Civil Appeal Nos.3640-3642 of 2025 (Periyammal (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors. vs. V. Rajamani and Anr. ETC.), the said execution should be decided within a period of six months. 9. Present petition is dismissed in above terms. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench