JUDGMENT 1. This revision is directed against an order passed by the learned 5th Judge (Junior Division) at Howrah in Misc. Case No.2 of 199R, under Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure by directing the stay of execution proceeding till the disposal of the Title Suit No. 100/96 pending before the same Court. The petitioners/decree-holders filed a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 2/90 before the learned Munsiff, 5th Court, Howrah for recovery or' khas possession and mesne profit. The Subject-matter of the aforesaid suit was in respect of a house situated in Municipal Holding No, 20/2, Kaibartapara Lane, Salkia., District Howrah comprising of two R. T. shed bedrooms and R. T. shed kitchen, common bath and privy, The petitioners revoked the licence of the principal defendant in the suit property by a registered letter dated 19th September, 1989 which was received by the opposite parties. It was indicated in the said notice that' the principal defendant-licensee would vacate the premises within seven days from the date of receipt of such notice. When the defendant did not vacate the premises within the time stipulated in the said notice, the petitioners, were, therefore, obliged to file the suit for recovery of possession after determination of the licence. The opposite parties/judgment-debtors denied all the material allegations of the previous plaint in Title Suit No. 2/90 and therefore, the principal defendant filed a written statement stating that the suit was bad far defect of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. The sale deed under which the plaintiffs said to have purchased suit premises, was also challenged on the ground of fraud and it was stated to be a shame transaction. The trial Court, however, disbelieving the defence, decreed the plaintiffs suit. Therefore, the defendant No. 1 in that suit being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of eviction after determination of licence, filed an appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, which was numbered as Title Appeal No. 194/92 and the same was dismissed. An application was filed for recalling the dismissal order under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the same also did not yield any other result than the order of dismissal. 2. An application was filed for recalling the dismissal order under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the same also did not yield any other result than the order of dismissal. 2. The opposite parties; who are the sons of Madan Mohan Sarkar, filed another suit being Title Suit No. 100/96 for declaration that the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 2/90 and Title Appeal. No, 194/92 was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The opposite parties also filed an application for injunction in the aforesaid suit and at the initial stage, an ad interim injunction was granted. But subsequently, an the application filed by the petitioners, the injunction order was vacated. 3. After passing of Execution Case No. 2/94 the decree, the petitioners started a Title pending in the same Court. The opposite parties filed a separate application, after dismissal of the prayer for temporary injunction for staying the further proceeding of the execution application. The Court, however having granted stay the petitioners being aggrieved by such order, have filed this application. 4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has state that the house belonged to Satish Chandra Sarkar and Promila Bala Sarkar: They sold the property to Jaladamoyi Dassi by a registered sale deed on 13.8.58. The plaintiff in that suit, Kamala Sarkar purchased the suit property from Jaladamoyi Dassi on 17.3.89 under the strength –of a registered sale deed. After purchase the vendee Kamala Sarkar filed a suit being Title Suit No. 2/90. The suit was decreed. The original defendant No. 1 occupied the premises as licensee. Since he was the licensee, his dependants had no interest whatsoever over the suit property. The appeal was carried on by the defendant No.1 and the same was also dismissed. The opposite parties, subsequellt1y, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 2/90 and prayed for ad interim injunction which was, of course, granted, but subsequently, it was vacated. The misc. appeal against the order of injunction is pending, but the prayer for stay was not granted. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court could not have granted stay in the execution application till the disposed of the suit. It is further argued that it is uncertain as to when the said suit will be disposed of. appeal against the order of injunction is pending, but the prayer for stay was not granted. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court could not have granted stay in the execution application till the disposed of the suit. It is further argued that it is uncertain as to when the said suit will be disposed of. It would not be proper to deprive the petitioners/decree-holders from taking possession and ask them to wait till the disposal of the suit. 5. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties judgment-debtors has submitted that the sons of the defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 2/90 were minors at the time of trial of the suit. They being minors, did not get proper opportunity, as a result of which their right is protected. Therefore such decree obtained against the principal defendant is void, illegal and unlawful. As a reason whereof, the executing Court was justified in granting stay in the execution application. 6. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by both parties, I find that the petitioners/decree-holders had tiled a suit being Title Suit No. 2/90 for recovery of possession treating the defendant No. 1 as licensee. After contest the said suit was decreed not only by the trial Court, but also upheld by the appellate Court. The other defendants, subsequently, filed a suit being T.S. No. l00/96, who were proforma parties in the earlier suit and no specific direction was sought for against them. The plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 100/96 had filed a suit for declaration that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 2/90 is null and void and it was obtained against the minors. In T.S. No. 2/90. the minor defendants were represented through their natural guardian. The defendant No.1 in T.S. No. 2/90, who was the natural guardian did not file any application by stating that he was not willing to conduct the suit as natural guardian of the minor defendants, nor has he had any adverse interest being the defendant No.1 against the minor defendants The defendant No. 1 in T.S. No. 2/90, who is the father of the minor defendants, was licensee, therefore, the minor defendants of that suit had presumably no interest in that suit. 7. 7. The injunction application filed by the plaintiff in T.S. No. 100/96 was considered in details and the same was dismissed having no merit in it. It has been submitted that an appeal is pending against the said order. Therefore, it is not worthwhile to discuss, the merit of the application and at the same time, it shall not be forgotten that the prayer for injunction of the plaintiff in T.S. No. 100/96 was rejected and the execution application was allowed to proceed. 8. When the injunction application filed by the plaintiff in T.S. No. 100/96 was rejected, it is not understood how the learned Court granted stay in the execution application filed under Order 2\ Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, in the above situation, I am not in a position to agree with the view of the executing Court by which stay of execution was granted. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 25.4.2000 in Misc. Case No 2/98 is hereby set aside. The executing Court is at liberty to proceed with further execution. It is, however, clear that taking delivery of possession 0f the house pursuant to the decree in execution case No. 2/94 shall abide by the result of the suit being T.S. No. 100/96. Accordingly, the revisional application succeeds. There will be no order as to costs.