ORDER 1. One Balaratnamma filed Original Suit No. 70 of 1980 in the Subordinate Judges Court, Kakinada against Respondents 9 and 10 for declaration of title and possession of a house. The said suit was decreed. 2. Subsequently, Respondents 1 to 6 also filed suit for partition. In the said suit, the appellants and Respondents 9 and 10 were defendants. The said a suit was decreed. An appeal was also filed by the appellants before the High Court. This appeal is still pending. In the meantime, Respondents 1 to 6 claiming themselves to be collateral of Balaratnamma put the decree in execution passed in Suit No. 70 of 1980. The appellants herein filed an objection under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code claiming title in the property by virtue of a Will alleged to be executed by Balaratnamma in their favour. It was also brought to the notice of the executing court that an injunction order was passed by the High Court whereby the decree passed in Suit No. 59 of 1987 was stayed. The executing court was of the view that although the property in dispute of both the suits is one and the same but the injunction order passed by the High Court was in respect of different Suit No. 59 of 1987 and as such, the Court is free to proceed with execution case. Consequently, the objection was rejected. The appellants, thereafter, filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the said revision. It is against the said judgment, the appellants are in appeal before us. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that in view of the injunction order passed by the High Court which is in respect of the property involved in the execution case and, therefore, the executing court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution case. It is, no doubt, true that the subject-matter of ass Nos. 70 of 1980 and 59 of 1987 are the same, but the decrees passed in both the suits are separate, based on different cause of actions and reliefs and inasmuch as the injunction order was in respect of proceedings arising out of Suit No. 59 of 1987. Under such circumstances, the executing court was not prohibited to proceed with the case. 4. Under such circumstances, the executing court was not prohibited to proceed with the case. 4. Learned counsel then urged that in view of the fact that the parties had filed a joint memo before the appellate court and the appellate court has directed that the question of substitution would be subject to the result of the appeal preferred against the decree passed in Suit No. 59 of 1987 and as such the execution proceedings ought to have been stayed. We do not find any merit in this contention. In case it is held that the appellant has right and title on the basis of the alleged Will, he can get back the possession of the property in dispute. 5. Before we conclude, we would like to observe that the appeal preferred by the appellants before the High Court requires an expeditious hearing preferably within a period of six months if not already disposed of. If the appeal before the High Court has not yet been disposed of, the proceedings in the executing court shall remain stayed for a period of six months. 6. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.