HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2996/2025 1. Jaipal Prasad Son Of Birdhilal (Since Deceased), Represented By His Lrs 1/1. Asha Daughter Of Late Jaipal Prasad Wife Of Premnarayan, Resident Of Rangbadi, Hanumaan Mandir Ke Pass,kota(Rajasthan). 1/2. Rekha Daughter Of Late Jaipal Prasad, Resident Of Radha Krishan Mandir Ke Pass, Dcm, Kota(Rajasthan). 2. Nandubhai Wife Of Late Jaipal Prasad, Resident Of 2/258, Ganesh Talab,kota (Rajasthan). 3. Hemraj Son Of Late Jaipal Prasad, Resident Of 2/258, Ganesh Talab,kota (Rajasthan). 4. Roshan Son Of Late Jaipal Prasad, Resident Of 2/258,ganesh Talab,kota(Rjasthan). ----Petitioners-Judgment debtors Versus Santosh Wife Of Prabhu Lal Both, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of 4-D-2, Rangbadi Yojna, Kota(Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Najeeb Anwar Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Singhal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 10/03/2025 The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners- judgment debtors (for short ‘the judgment debtors’) dissatisfied with the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the executing court in Execution No.20/2024 titled as “Santosh Vs. Jaipal & Ors.”, whereby the executing court refused to extend interim order which was granted on 13.01.2025 uptil 23.01.2025. (2 of 3) [CW-2996/2025] Learned counsel for the judgment debtors submits that the judgment debtors filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.1, South Kota (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.373/2014, by which the trial court directed to judgment debtors to hand over the possession of the disputed shop to the decree holder. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2024, the judgment debtors filed an appeal along with stay application before the appellate Court. The appellate court vide order dated 29.05.2024 dismissed the stay application filed by the judgment- debtors and posted the appeal for final argument. Learned counsel for the judgment debtors further submits that judgment debtors were ready to argue the appeal but on account of stay granted by this court vide order dated 28.02.2025, the appellate court fixed the appeal in the month of April, 2025. Learned counsel for the judgment debtors further submits that they are ready to argue the matter as per date fixed/determined by the appellate court and till then, execution proceedings are required be stayed. Learned counsel for the decree-holder/respondent (for short ‘the decree holder’) has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the judgment debtors and submitted that the appellate court rightly dismissed the stay application filed by the judgment debtors. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. (3 of 3) [CW-2996/2025] I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the judgment debtors as well as learned counsel for the decree-holder. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 28.02.2025 while issuing notice to the decree holder, stayed the execution proceedings in Execution No.20/2024. So, in my considered opinion, the present writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the appellate court to decide the appeal filed by the judgment debtors finally on 18.03.2025 by preponing the date. Till then, execution proceedings shall remain stayed. It is made clear that if the judgment debtors fail to argue the appeal on 18.03.2025, stay order passed by this court shall stand vacated automatically. Pending application, if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/52