JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. DK Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing vice Mr. B Debnath, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality of the order dated 18.12.2017 delivered by the Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Dharmanagar, North Tripura in the execution case being No. Ex.(M)01/2017. 3. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the decree passed in Title Suit 29 of 2017 directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,580/- was put on execution by the respondent but when the petitioners came to know that the respondent had transferred a huge amount of money to the extent of Rs.59,14,000/- from the account of the partnership firm namely, M/S Chapala Brick Industries they filed a separate suit for realizing the said amount from the respondent which he took out from the account of the said firm. The suit is still pending. That apart, on such disclosure the petitioners have preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree as delivered in Title Suit 29 of 2017 and that has been admitted that in contemplation of imminent danger to their property, the petitioners filed an application in the execution court under Order XXI Rule 29 of the CPC for stay of the execution proceeding. By the impugned order dated 18.12.2017 as passed in Ex.(M) 01/2017, the said petition has been rejected by the executing court. Being aggrieved by that order, this revision petition, has been filed. 4. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the executing court has observed that the decree holder has also moved an appeal in this High Court for realization of the further amount which was not decreed by the trial court but the JDs (the petitioners herein) did not as yet moved any counter-appeal against the said judgment under appeal. In terms of the order dated 17.08.2017 as delivered in CRP 36/2017, it has been observed that the execution court was under obligation to dispose the said execution proceeding as expeditiously as possible. 5. In terms of the order dated 17.08.2017 as delivered in CRP 36/2017, it has been observed that the execution court was under obligation to dispose the said execution proceeding as expeditiously as possible. 5. From the said order, it is found that the executing court has taken notice of the suit that has been filed by the petitioners being Title Suit 29/2017, but simultaneously the execution court has observed, “…….there is no challenge made by the JDs against the decree on the ground of any fraud or misrepresentation. JDs may have separate claim against the DH as they have joint collaboration earlier in running the business of Chapala Bricks Industries. So at this stage it cannot be definitely said that the running of the present execution case will be detrimental to the subject matter or the JDs of this suit. In order words, I hold that merely on the ground of filing fresh suit by JDs against the DH relating to their new claim, this executing court cannot invoke the power provided under order 21 rule 29 of CPC and stay the execution proceedings. Furthermore, the JDs did not cite as to how they will be prejudice in case the present execution case proceeds.” For that reason, their prayer made for staying the execution proceeding was turned down. 6. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel has contended that the executing court has failed to realize that the petitioners had a right, even though they were not for quite some time aware of those transactions carried out surreptitiously and fraudulently from the account of the firm. If they were aware, they could have taken a different stand which might have dissuaded the trial court not to pass the decree. 7. From the other side, Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there is serious suppression of material facts in this revision petition. Mr. Deb, having referred to a few orders passed by the executing court has contended that the petitioners made a solemn declaration before the executing court that they would deposit the decretal amount in that court. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there is serious suppression of material facts in this revision petition. Mr. Deb, having referred to a few orders passed by the executing court has contended that the petitioners made a solemn declaration before the executing court that they would deposit the decretal amount in that court. They sought time for that purpose and on relying that declaration bona fide, the executing court accommodated them for depositing the decretal amount, but finally they have not deposited, rather by the said application under Order XXI Rule 29 of the CPC they had come forward for staying the execution proceeding. 8. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has categorically referred to the order dated 25.10.2017 as passed in Ex.(M)01/2017 where it has been recorded by the executing court as follows: “On the contrary, learned counsel of JDs submitted that they are willing to make payment of the decreetal money but due to their out or station they could not appear to take the necessary step for which a short adjournment is sought.” 9. On this ground, they have been further accommodated and finally, Mr. Deb has referred the order dated 24.11.2017 where the executing court has observed as follows: “It appears that the O.D. account maintained in the name of JDs has been attached owing to failure of JDs to make payment of decreetal money. In the meantime, JDs prayed for stay of further proceedings in this case on the ground of their filing of fresh suit against the DH for recovery of sum of Rs.59,14,000/-. Situated thus, in my view further order regarding execution of decree may be passed after disposal of the application of JD.” 10. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has continued to submit that after making a solemn declaration before the executing court the petitioners not only have turned around but has suppressed this material fact from this Court to obtain an order, which conduct this Court does not approve of. 11. It is a well settled principle of law that the stream of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by suppression of the material fact and such conduct cannot be condoned by the Court. 12. 11. It is a well settled principle of law that the stream of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by suppression of the material fact and such conduct cannot be condoned by the Court. 12. Be that as it may, this Court having regard to the development and of the pendency of the appeals from the judgment and decree passed in Money Suit No. 07/2015 being RFA 02/2018 and RFA 27/2016, is inclined to pass the following order. The petitioners-judgment debtors shall deposit the said sum of Rs, 7,50,580/- with interest within a period of 15 days from today in the execution court, subject to the condition that that will not waive their right in the suit they have filed being Title Suit 29/2017 or in the appeal they have preferred being RFA 02/2018. It is further directed that the execution court shall allow the respondent-decree holder to receive the said amount on furnishing an indemnity bond or the adequate security to the effect that if the decree contrary to the decree under appeal is passed by the appellate court or the superior court, he shall refund the entire amount with interest @ 5% per annum to the appropriate court. 15. In terms of the above, this petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be also kept in the files of RFA 02/2018 and RFA 27/2016. Be this order as well sent to the execution court.