JUDGMENT : Easwaran S., J. This Original Petition (Civil) is filed seeking the following reliefs: a. To call for the records leading upto Ext.P2 Order on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Kottarakkara; b. To pass an Order staying all further proceedings in E.P.64 of 2015 in O.S. No.179 of 1983 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Kottarakkara. 2. The petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in O.S. No.179 of 1983 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara, instituted for declaration of title and possession, putting up boundary, recovery of possession, and for consequential injunction. 3. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsiff by judgment and decree dated 30.1.2004, against which, R.F.A. No.100 of 2004 was filed before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara, which was also dismissed by judgment dated 18.12.2014. The grievance of the petitioner is that, as against the dismissal of R.F.A. No.100 of 2004, R.S.A. No.952 of 2015 is filed and is pending before this Court, and that there occurred some delay in filing the appeal, and the delay is yet to be condoned since this Court had issued notice to the respondents, and that the service is yet to be completed. Therefore, it is submitted that if the decree is executed before the delay is condoned, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. 4. This Court condoned the delay in filing R.S.A. No.952 of 2015 on 18.03.2026, posted the appeal for admission on 26.03.2026, and called for a report from the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara, regarding the status of O.S. No.179 of 1983. The learned Munsiff had filed a report stating that the decree stands executed, and therefore, this Court prima facie felt that nothing remains to be considered in the appeal. But it was brought to the notice of this Court that the execution was carried out by the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara, ignoring an order of stay granted by this Court on 28.3.2017. Hence, this Court further required the learned Munsiff, Kottarakkara, to file a specific report detailing the circumstances under which the decree happened to be executed. In response to the said direction, the learned Munsiff forwarded a report wherein it is mentioned that, in the absence of any materials on record after 24.3.2025 to show that the interim stay continued, the court bonafidely proceeded with the execution of the decree in accordance with law. In response to the said direction, the learned Munsiff forwarded a report wherein it is mentioned that, in the absence of any materials on record after 24.3.2025 to show that the interim stay continued, the court bonafidely proceeded with the execution of the decree in accordance with law. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Vinod v. State of Kerala [ 2024 (5) KLT 676 ]. 5. This Court felt that the explanation was unsatisfactory and had reserved its views to be pronounced finally at the time of rendering the judgment in the Original Petition. But, since this Court found that the learned Munsiff had acted, ignoring the interim order passed by this Court, this Court directed the learned Munsiff to restore the status quo ante and order redelivery of the property. This was by order dated 30.3.2026. The matter was thereafter listed on 6.4.2026. The learned Munsiff filed a report stating that in compliance with the order passed by this Court on 30.3.2026, the property has been redelivered and the status qua ante has been restored. 6. Normally, in the light of compliance with the order dated 30.3.2026, this Court need not have deliberated the matter further. But then, this Court felt that in the light of certain developments that took place during the pendency of the Execution Petition and also the conduct of the decree holder, the matter requires further deliberation in order to avoid any unpleasant situation in the future when interim orders passed by this Court are in force. 7. The records of the Execution Petition, which made available before this Court, indicate that by a separate memo dated 3.6.2025, the judgment debtor had produced a copy of the order dated 28.3.2017 informing the learned Munsiff, Kottarakkara, that the interim order continues. On 13.6.2025, the case status showing the pendency of the Original Petition was also produced, which is also available on record. On 13.6.2025, another application was filed by the judgment debtor requesting that the execution of the decree has to be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the Original Petition. Therefore, it is a clear case where the learned Munsiff had ignored the order of stay and had proceeded to execute the decree. On 13.6.2025, another application was filed by the judgment debtor requesting that the execution of the decree has to be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the Original Petition. Therefore, it is a clear case where the learned Munsiff had ignored the order of stay and had proceeded to execute the decree. It is further clear that the explanation offered by the learned Munsiff is that on or after 24.3.2025, there was nothing to indicate the continuation of the interim order. 8. Ideally, this Court should have taken further proceedings against the learned Munsiff for deliberately ignoring the interim order passed by this Court and also giving an explanation contrary to the records. But, since the property has been redelivered, this Court does not want to precipitate the issue but would like to issue a caution to the jurisdictional Munsiff not to venture with such a hasty act in the future, and if brought to the notice of this Court any repetition of like nature, it will be dealt with appropriately. 9. Now coming to the conduct of the decree holder, the records further indicate that E.A. No.1 of 2026 was preferred on 16.3.2026, requesting the court to fix the boundary in terms of the CD line in Ext.C3 plan with police protection, which appears to have been considered and ordered by the trial court. Certainly, the conduct of the decree holder leaves lot to be desired especially since he had entered appearance before this Court. No plausible explanation is forthcoming from the hands of the learned counsel for the respondent as regards the dichotomous stand. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent tried to support his case by pointing out the proceedings of the executing court, and it is pointed out that even the learned counsel for the judgment debtor had conceded before the trial court that the interim order is not in force, and that would have perhaps led the executing court to believe that the interim stay is no longer in force. But this Court is not satisfied with the aforesaid explanation. Even if the learned counsel for the judgment debtor had informed the court that there is no stay in force, it is indisputable that the interim order passed in the present Original Petition continues to be in force even today. 11. But this Court is not satisfied with the aforesaid explanation. Even if the learned counsel for the judgment debtor had informed the court that there is no stay in force, it is indisputable that the interim order passed in the present Original Petition continues to be in force even today. 11. Be that as it may, in the peculiar facts this Court feels that it should deliberate the explanation submitted by the learned Munsiff as regards his act of disposing of the Execution Petition, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Vinod (Supra). 12. In Vinod (Supra), this Court was concerned with a criminal proceeding before the Magistrate Court where the proceedings were adjourned from time to time on the basis of the submissions made by the parties that the interim order passed by the High Court continues. Therefore, this Court felt it appropriate to issue directions in this regard, requiring the parties to file an affidavit every three months in cases where interim orders are extended until further orders, in order to substantiate that the interim order passed by this Court continues. 13. This Court wishes to record that it does not propose to revisit the directions issued by this Court in Vinod(supra) . However, it is necessary to consider the question whether the trial court could find fault with the party for not filing an affidavit and accordingly proceed with the matter ignoring the order of stay. 14. In the judicial hierarchy, there cannot be any doubt that, the trial court should refrain itself in cases where the order of stay granted by this court continues. In the present case, the explanation caused by the learned Munsiff clearly evidences an attempt to put the responsibility for the disobedience on the shoulders of the petitioner. The explanation is completely silent on the attempts made by the office of Munsiff Court to verify the case status of this case as regards the pendency of this Original Petition. Even assuming for argument’s sake that the petitioner failed to file an affidavit, the order of stay was produced. It would be wholly impermissible to hold that the failure of the parties to file such an affidavit would entail in proceeding with further proceedings by the jurisdictional courts. 15. Even assuming for argument’s sake that the petitioner failed to file an affidavit, the order of stay was produced. It would be wholly impermissible to hold that the failure of the parties to file such an affidavit would entail in proceeding with further proceedings by the jurisdictional courts. 15. Moreover, like in this case, when an interim order was granted by this Court without any time limit and that sufficient materials were before the executing court to indicate that there was an interim order passed by this Court, and that prima facie it was the duty of the Court to have verified the status of the Original Petition through its office especially in the light of the fact that the case status of all the cases are easily available online. By casting a burden on the parties alone, the court cannot justify its high-handed action of proceeding with the execution when an interim order was passed by this Court. 16. Equally so, this Court must deprecate the action of the decree holder in seeking police protection to enforce the decree and also to fix the boundary when he was already represented before this Court through a counsel. These facts in totality would persuade this Court to issue certain directions in the interest of justice by clarifying that the failure of the parties to file affidavits as directed in Vinod (Supra) will not obliterate the interdictory orders passed by this Court, which are in force. Therefore, in such circumstances, when the affidavit as directed by this Court in Vinod (Supra) is not filed in the respective civil litigations, it will not automatically enable the courts to proceed with the matter further and that the jurisdictional courts are required either to address this Court through appropriate mechanism or to obtain reports through available sources and methods and satisfy itself that the proceedings which led to the passing of the interim orders interdicting the further proceedings before the court have been terminated before this Court. This Court feels that this direction is required in order to avoid the unpleasant situations where the court proceeds to execute the decree notwithstanding the interdictory orders passed by this Court. 17. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that it will not be appropriate to permit the decree holder to continue with Execution Petition No.64 of 2015 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara.. 17. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that it will not be appropriate to permit the decree holder to continue with Execution Petition No.64 of 2015 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara.. Accordingly, the original petition is ordered by directing the Munsiff, Court, Kottarakkara to adjourn E.P. No.64 of 2015 sine die and that the court is directed to take up the Execution Petition only after the disposal of R.S.A. No.952 of 2015. Registry is directed to communicate this order to all the subordinate courts for follow up action. Ordered accordingly.