ORDER : 1. By way of the present application, the applicants seek to transfer the Civil Execution Petition No.08 of 2014 pending before the learned Small Causes Court, Rajkot to the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, where the Special Civil Suit No.54 of 2022 arising out of the same subject property is pending for adjudication. 2. Brief facts of the present case are as under: 2.1 The issue involves in the present application pertains to a godown admeasuring about 1050 Sq. Yard forming part of Plot No. 17 situated at Survey No. 387/388 Paiki at Gondal, Rajkot (hereinafter to be referred as the property in question). 2.2 The property in question was belonging to late father of the Opponent No. 1, who had executed an agreement to sale dated 05.04.1990 in favor of the father of the Applicant No. 1. It was agreed between them that the said consideration of the property will be Rs. 5,25,000 out of which an amount of Rs. 4,25,000 has been paid by the father of the Applicant No. 1 by dual mode i.e. cash as well as cheque. The father of the Applicant No.1 on various occasions reminded the father of the Opponent No. 1 to execute sale deed further, father of the Opponent No. 1 kept promises, but did not execute the sale deed. The father of Applicant No.1 on 08.04.1990, 14.05.1990 and 20.02.1991 written letters to the father of the Opponent No.1 requesting to execute the sale deed. 2.3 The father of the Opponent No.1 on 15.05.1990 written a letter to the father of the Applicant No.1, handing over the possession of the godown and to use the same till formalities for getting property release from Urban Land Ceiling (ULC). It was promised that once property is released from ULC, sale deed will be executed. The father of the Applicant No.1 wanted to make use of godown for the purpose of storage of gas cylinder and the gas company wanted to proof of retaining property and therefore, as agreement for rent, for that limited purpose, was executed on 10.04.1991. Unfortunately, before father of the Opponent No.1 could execute the sale deed, he passed away on 19.09.1996. The Opponent No.1 by fabricating will of his father i.e. will dated 07.04.1996, filed proceedings for getting letter of administration being Civil Misc. Unfortunately, before father of the Opponent No.1 could execute the sale deed, he passed away on 19.09.1996. The Opponent No.1 by fabricating will of his father i.e. will dated 07.04.1996, filed proceedings for getting letter of administration being Civil Misc. Application No. 400 of 1999 wherein, it was suppressed that the godown had already been sold to the father of the Applicant No.1. 2.4 The Opponents filed a frivolous suit against the father of the Applicant No. 1 being Regular Civil Suit No.76 of 2000 seeking decree of eviction and the said suit came to be allowed on 19.07.2014. Being aggrieved, the said decree was challenged by the father of the Applicant No.1 by way of preferring a Regular Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2014 in between, the father of Applicant No. 1 passed away and the said proceedings were persuade further by the applicants. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 20.05.2019 and thereafter, the applicants preferred Civil Revision Application No. 309 of 2019 before this Hon'ble Court further, the said revision application also came to be rejected and the applicants preferred a petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8819 of 2022, which also stood dismissed. 2.5 On 12.07.2022, the applicants filed a suit against the opponents being Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 2022 seeking decree of specific performance against the opponents pursuant to agreement to sale, referred to hereinabove, executed between the late father of Applicant No. 1 with the late father of Opponent No. 1. The said suit was filed and the opponents are found to be making attempts for transferring the godwon to a third party. That in the said suit, opponents are being represented, who have filed their reply to the injunction application as well as to the suit. The applicants have also preferred an application under Order 22 Rule 5 as well as an application under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code taking action against the opponents. The applicants have also filed objection in the Darkhast proceedings. Thus, the Darkhast proceedings as well as the suit proceedings are pending consideration before the two different Courts and the issue in both proceedings is said subject property. The applicants have also filed objection in the Darkhast proceedings. Thus, the Darkhast proceedings as well as the suit proceedings are pending consideration before the two different Courts and the issue in both proceedings is said subject property. There are chances of conflicting order, which will prejudice the rights of the parties and if two proceedings are tried by the two different Courts then, there would be further chances of anomalous situation and therefore, the applicants urge this Hon'ble Court to exercise the powers as provided under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code for transferring the proceedings pending before the Learned Small Causes Court, Rajkot in Civil Execution Petition No. 8 of 2014 to the Court of Learned Principal Civil Judge, Rajkot where, proceedings of Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 2022 is pending. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani for the applicants and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah with learned advocate Mr. Jenil M. Shah for the respondents. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani by referring to provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) submitted that the execution proceedings which are now sought to be transferred by way of this application are covered under the head of “other proceedings” for imparting substantial justice and this Hon’ble Court may exercise powers under Section 24 of the C.P.C. by transferring the proceedings to the same Court which is prayed in the prayer clause. He has further submitted that he has already informed the Executing Court that the Special Civil Suit is also pending before different Courts and the subject matter of the suit and execution proceedings are the same and therefore, the execution proceedings ordinarily may not be proceeded considering the provisions of Order XXI Rule 29 of the C.P.C. He has further submitted that if the execution proceedings are transferred where the suit is pending, no apparent harm or prejudice would be caused to the respondents and the subject matter in both the proceedings are the same, the parties are also the same and both the Courts are competent to exercise its territorial jurisdiction over the subject property and therefore, this Court may transfer the proceedings in the largest interest by exercising powers under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Therefore, he prays to allow the present application. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehul Shah appearing for the respondents has strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicants and also opposed the prayer. He has submitted that the suit is filed in the year 2000, whereby, the learned Civil Court after a period of 14 years has decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19.07.2014 and pursuant to that, the judgment creditors have filed Civil Execution Petition No.08 of 2014, which is pending before the concerned Court at Rajkot. There is no dispute about the fact that the suit is filed regarding the property being Plot No.17 admeasuring about 1050 Sq. Yard forming part of Revenue Survey No.387/388 Paiki at Rajkot, which is a godown. The said proceedings are now at the verge of final disposal and the present respondents who are judgment creditors are about to get the fruits of the decree passed by the learned trial Court. The present applicants have filed Special Civil Suit No.54 of 2022 before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, in connection with the property being Plot No.17, seeking decree of specific performance against the respondents, which is after-thought, after lapse of almost 22 years from the initiation of proceedings by the present respondents by way of the Civil Suit and which is filed with a view to delay the execution proceedings pending before the concerned trial Court, whereby, the decree of the year 2014 is now sought to be executed. Therefore, he has submitted that there is no connection between the subject matter of both the suits except the similarity of the property and the parties, but, the fact remains that the process of adjudication of both the proceedings i.e. execution proceedings as well as the proceeding of the Civil Suit are totally different and therefore, the present application is an attempt to further delay the proceeding by seeking transfer of the proceeding from one Court to another Court and therefore, in the interest of justice, this application is required to be dismissed as no ground is made out under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the present application. 6. 6. I have heard the rival submissions made at the bar and considered the fact that the execution proceeding is filed pursuant to the suit filed in the year 2000, which is decreed in favour of the present respondents in the year 2014. It transpires that, immediately, the execution proceeding is also filed in the year 2014. Now, it is also informed at the bar that the execution proceeding is at the stage of final disposal. It also transpires that in the meantime, in the year 2022, the present applicants have filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement. The provisions of Section 24 of the C.P.C., reads as under: “24. General power of transfer and withdrawal .- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion, without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may, at any stage- (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it; and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which [is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) [For the purposes of this section,- (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; (b) "proceeding" includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order.] (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. (5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it. [Inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 10 (w.e.f. 1.2.1977).]” 7. Considering the fact that the nature of proceeding of Execution Proceeding and the nature of proceeding of Civil Suit are substantially different and the execution proceeding is at the verge of final disposal and the Special Civil Suit No.54 of 2022, which is filed in the year 2022, is yet to be proceeded on its own merits. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, no justifiable reason is made out by the present applicants to exercise powers under Section 24 of the C.P.C. for transfer of the suit as prayed in the application and therefore, I am of the view that the present application is nothing but a dilatory tactic adopted by the present applicants. Otherwise also, if the transfer is carried out, it would further hamper the process of adjudication of execution proceeding, which is otherwise required to be decided independently. Therefore, I found no reason which warrants any justifiable cause to exercise powers under Section 24 of the C.P.C. and therefore, the present application is found meritless and the same is required to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged.