JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner-decree holder, who has approached this Court with the grievance that despite judgement and decree passed in his favour in the suit for specific performance on 5.9.2012 by the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan so far the execution of the aforesaid decree has not been made. In the earlier stage, the learned executing court was delaying the execution only because the defendant-respondent filed the first appeal before this Court, but now the appeal has been dismissed on 8.12.2014. Therefore, even that reason has also ceased to exist. There is no justification for delaying the execution of the judgement-decree. Learned counsel in support of his contentions relied on the judgement in Satyawati vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 491 and argued that Supreme Court has deprecated unreasonable delay on the part of the executing court in execution of the decree. 2. Dr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgement of this Court passed in first appeal aforesaid has been subjected to challenge before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Petition and, therefore, this Court as also the executing court, should await decision of the Supreme Court. 3. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement of Satyawati, supra has deprecated the delay in execution of decree passed in civil suit. The Supreme Court held that it is really agonising to learn that the appellant decree-holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of her success despite lapse of long period of time since passing of the judgement and decree. The Supreme Court has referred to earlier previous judgements of Privy Council in General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga vs. Coomar Ramaput Sing-(1871-72) 14 MIA 605 : 20 ER 912 and Kuer Jang Bahadur vs. Bank of Upper India Ltd. AIR 1925 Oudh 448 (PC) wherein it was observed that Courts in India have to be careful to see that the process of the Court and the law of procedure are not abused by judgement-debtors in such a way as to make courts of law instrumental in defrauding creditors, who have obtained decrees in accordance with their rights. 4. 4. Reference was made to the judgement of Babu Lal vs. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal- (1982) 1 SCC 525 wherein it was observed that procedure is meant to advance the cause of justice and not to retard it. The difficulty of the decree-holder starts in getting possession in pursuance of the decree obtained by him. The judgement-debtor tries to thwart the execution by all possible objections. 5. Subsequently in Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd.- (1999) 2 SCC 325 , it was similarly observed by the Supreme Court that proceedings are dragged for a long time on one count or the other and, on occasions, become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Because of the delay, unscrupulous parties to the proceedings take undue advantage and a person who is in wrongful possession drawn delight in delay in disposal of the cases by taking undue advantage of procedural complications. It is also a well known fact after obtaining a decree for possession of immovable property, its execution takes a long time. 6. Reference may be further made to judgement of the Supreme Court in Shub Karan Bubna vs. Sita Saran Bubna- (2009) 9 SCC 689 wherein it has also been observed that to be really meaningful and efficient, the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure should enable a party not only to get a decree quickly, but also to get the relief quickly. This requires a conceptual change regarding civil litigation, so that the emphasis is not only on disposal of suits, but also on securing relief to the litigant. 7. Having regard to the aforementioned judgements, it needs to be emphasized that executing court should not delay the execution of the decree only because the respondent has preferred appeal against its judgement and decree unless and until the appellate court passes restrain order on execution of the decree. It is therefore impressed upon the executing court to expedite the execution of the decree at the earliest without granting any unnecessary adjournment except for specified reasons. 8. With that direction, the writ petition is disposed of.