JUDGMENT : Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J. - 1. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Athagarh in Misc. Case No. 2 of 2007 (arising out of Execution Case No. 1 of 2007), the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the said order, learned ADJ allowed the application filed by the opposite parties under Order 21 Rule 29 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. and stayed the further proceeding of the execution case. 2. The petitioners as plaintiffs instituted C.S.(I) No. 47 of 2002 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Athagarh for declaration that the sale deed bearing No. 2740 dated 29.7.2000 is illegal and void; for declaration that the plaintiffs being legal heirs and successors of Prasanta Kumar Pattnaik (husband of plaintiff-petitioner No. 1 and father of plaintiff-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3) have right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands including the building standing thereon; for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from receiving the rent of the building from the tenants (defendant Nos. 2 to 5) for arrear rent from 01.06.2000 to 30.11.2002 amounting to Rs. 90,000/- and to pay rent from 01.12.2002 till the date of eviction/vacation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month, eviction of the defendants and delivery of possession of schedule A and B properties. Subsequently the said suit was transferred to the court of the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Athagarh. The suit was decreed. Challenging inter alia the part of the decree refusing to grant arrear rent, the plaintiffs filed R.F.A. No. 108/2007 before this Court, which is pending adjudication. 3. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiffs laid Execution Case No. 1 of 2007. The defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 21 Rule 29 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. to stay the further proceeding of the execution case till disposal of R.F.A. No. 108/2007. The petitioners filed objection to the same. By order dated 17.1.2008, learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Athagarh came to hold that when certain findings rendered in C.S.(I) 47 of 2002 is impugned in R.F.A. No. 108/2007, the execution of the decree, drawn up, basing on the judgment in the said suit cannot be allowed. The petitioners filed objection to the same. By order dated 17.1.2008, learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Athagarh came to hold that when certain findings rendered in C.S.(I) 47 of 2002 is impugned in R.F.A. No. 108/2007, the execution of the decree, drawn up, basing on the judgment in the said suit cannot be allowed. Held so, the learned Executing Court stayed the further proceeding of the execution till disposal of R.F.A. No. 108/2007. 4. Heard Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1. 5. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed. They cannot be deprived of the fruits of the decree. The further proceeding of the execution case cannot be stayed for an indefinite period till disposal of R.F.A. No. 108/2007. He further submitted that the power under Order 21 Rule 29 C.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly. After unsuccessful in the suit, the opposite party/defendant instituted C.S. (I) No. 15 of 2007 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Athagarh for specific performance of contract. The subsequent suit is in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property of the previous suit. No prejudice will be caused to the judgment-debtor to get back the properties in the event of success. Thus, it is highly inequitable to deprive of the decree-holders of the fruits of decree on the plea of pendency of the speculative suit. He relied the decisions of this Court, i.e., (1) Judhistir Jena v. Surendra Mohanty AIR 1969 Orissa 233, (2) Pholi Dibya v. Idan Bibi and others 1986(1) OLR 183 , (3) Rauf Khan v. Sara Bibi and others 61(1986) CLT 114, (4) Satyanarayan Verma @ Sharma v. Krushna Chandra Sahu 61(1986) CLT 673 (5) Mst. Kamroon Nisha Bibi and others v. Yusuf Khan and others AIR 1987 Orissa 234 and (6) M.S. Jaggi v. Dataram Jagannath, 73(1992) CLT 257. 6. Per contra, Mr. Gosh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submitted that the plaintiffs have preferred R.F.A. No. 108/2007 before this Court challenging the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Athagarh in C.S.(1) No. 47 of 2002. The opposite party No. 1 is in possession of the suit property since 24.5.2000. 6. Per contra, Mr. Gosh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submitted that the plaintiffs have preferred R.F.A. No. 108/2007 before this Court challenging the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Athagarh in C.S.(1) No. 47 of 2002. The opposite party No. 1 is in possession of the suit property since 24.5.2000. In the event, the further proceeding of the execution case is not stayed, she will suffer irreparable injury. He further submitted that the judgment-debtor has strong prima facie case and there is every likelihood conflicting decrees in the two suits. He relied on the decisions in the case of (1) Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others AIR 2015 SC 3269 (2) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sh. Jai Singh and Others 2010 AIR SCW 5968 and (3) Bibijan & others v. Durga Bai and another AIR 1988 Orissa 246 and this Court in the case of Narendra Ray v. Kunjabehari Ray and Others, Vol-32(1990) OJD- 556 (Civil). 7. In Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others AIR 2015 SC 3269 , the apex Court held that judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and jurisdiction under Article 227 is different from jurisdiction under Article 226. 8. Dealing with the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution, the apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sh. Jai Singh and Others 2010 AIR SCW 5968 held thus. "xxx xxx xxx Before we consider the factual and legal issues involved herein, we may notice certain well recognized principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the High Court, under this Article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with well established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognized constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence. Generally, it cannot substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi-judicial tribunals. The power to re-appreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice. xxx xxx xxx" 9. On the anvil of the aforesaid decisions, the case of the petitioners may be examined. 10. Challenging inter alia the part of the decree refusing to grant arrear rent, the plaintiffs filed R.F.A. No. 108/2007. The question does arise as to whether the plaintiffs, the decree holders, can execute the decree during pendency of R.F.A. No. 108/2007. 11. In Judhistir Jena v. Surendra Mohanty and another AIR 1969 ORISSA 233, this Court held :- "xxx xxx xxx The fundamental consideration is that the decree has been obtained by a party and he should not be deprived of the fruits of that decree except for good reasons. Until that decree is set aside, it stands good and it should not be lightly dealt with on the off-chance that another suit to set aside the decree might succeed. Such suits are also of a very precarious nature. Until that decree is set aside, it stands good and it should not be lightly dealt with on the off-chance that another suit to set aside the decree might succeed. Such suits are also of a very precarious nature. The allegations therein ordinarily would be that the previous decree was obtained by fraud or collusion or that the decree was not binding on the present plaintiff as the transaction entered into by the judgment-debtor was tainted with immorality. These are all suits of un-certain and speculative character. Most of these cases are likely to fail the onus being very heavy on the plaintiff to establish fraud and similar charges. That being the position, a person should not be deprived of the fruits of his decree merely because suits of frivolous character are instituted and litigants are out after further series of litigations. The decree must be allowed to be executed and unless an extra-ordinary case is made out, no stay should be granted. Even if stay is granted, it must be on suitable terms so that the earlier decree is not stifled. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in what cases stay would be granted or refused. But as has already been stated, a rigorous test is to be applied and in most of the cases prayer for stay is bound to be refused. xxx xxx xxx" 12. The decisions in the case of Pholi Dibya (supra), Rauf Khan (supra), Satyanarayan Verma @ Sharma (supra), Mst. Kamroon Nisha Bibi and others (supra) and M.S. Jaggi (supra) are distinguishable on facts. 13. In Narendra Ray, the learned Judge held that Order 21 Rule 29 C.P.C. is attracted if a suit by the judgment-debtor is pending in a court against the decree holder of that court and in such a case the execution of the decree may be stayed until disposal of the suit. The power to stay execution is discretionary, but the discretion is to be exercised judicially on consideration of relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 14. In none of the cases cited by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that the decree holder has filed appeal challenging a part of the judgment and decree and simultaneously levied execution. 15. 14. In none of the cases cited by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that the decree holder has filed appeal challenging a part of the judgment and decree and simultaneously levied execution. 15. Since the decree holders filed First Appeal assailing the part of the decree, the further proceeding of the Execution Case No. 1 of 2007 of the court of the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Athagarh shall remain stayed till disposal of R.F.A. No. 108/2007. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed