ORDER : P.SAM KOSHY, J. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.01.2025, in I.A.No.429 of 2022 in O.S.No.598 of 2022, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. 2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Imran Khan, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. Acharya Bharath Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Courthas allowed a petitionfiled under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) staying all further proceedings of the E.P.No.4 of 2021 (renumbered as EP.No.1528 of 2022) filed by the respondents seeking execution of the compromise decree dated 29.12.2020 in O.S.No.29 of 2016. 4. The petitioner herein earlier had filed a suit i.e. O.S.No.29 of 2016 for specific performance of contract pertaining to an oral agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants in the said suit. Initially, interim injunction was granted by the Trial Court on 06.01.2017. The suit finally stood disposed of by way of a compromise decree passed on 29.12.2020. While the aforesaid suit was itself pending, the defendants executed a registered sale deed on 20.11.2017 in favour of the petitioner herein. According to the respondents, when they went to get the sale deed registered, it was informed that the property has been put in prohibited list pursuant to the litigation between the parties i.e. in O.S.No.29 of 2016 where there is an injunction order in operation.The petitioner immediately filed a separate suit i.e. O.S.No.149 of 2018 seeking for declaration of the compromise decree dated 29.12.2020 in O.S.No.29 of 2016as null and void being a collusive suit. 5. The defendant No.3 in the prevision Revision Petition had earlier filed a suit seeking for declaration and injunction. The said suit was registered as O.S.No.598 of 2022. Upon a petition filed for grant of injunction, there is an order of status quo that has been passed by the Trial Court in favour of respondent No.1 herein. Earlier when the sale deed was not getting registered, the respondents had filed a Writ Petition i.e. W.P.No.41621 of 2017 which stood allowed with a direction to the Registrar Stamps to get the sale deed registered. Earlier when the sale deed was not getting registered, the respondents had filed a Writ Petition i.e. W.P.No.41621 of 2017 which stood allowed with a direction to the Registrar Stamps to get the sale deed registered. However, the petitioner herein immediately filed a review petition stating that the Writ Petition that was disposed of earlier was by material suppression of facts, and in the teeth of the compromise decree which is in force; the sale deed could not have been registered. The review petition stood allowed vide order dated 15.04.2024 making the following observations, viz., “11. The fact remains that by the date of order in writ petition (dated 21.12.2017) and registration of sale deeds (dated 20.11.2017), injunction order dated 06.01.2017 in IA.No.277 of 2016 was subsisting. Therefore, there was misstatement of facts. The respondents No.4 to 8-writ petitioners have misrepresented before this Court, which lead to passing of order dated 21.12.2017. Pursuant thereto, the respondents No.4 to 8-writ petitioners got the sale deeds registered. Thus, the order dated 21.12.2017 is recalled and the review petition is allowed. The writ petition is restored to file.” 6. The said order passed in review petition was subjected to challenge in a Writ Appeal by the respondents herein which was registered as W.A.No.695 of 2024. The said Writ Appeal stood disposed of by the Division Benchmaking the following observations, viz., “7. In view of the legal position enunciated in Asset Reconstruction Company (I ndia) Limited (supra), the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is modified and it is directed that for the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 15.04.2024, registration of the sale deeds dated 20.11.2017 bearing Document Nos.10041 and 10042 of 2017 is declared void. Needless to state that all contentions with regard to execution of the sale deeds in question are kept open to be agitated by the parties in an appropriate proceeding, if so advised.” 7. Subsequent to the disposal of W.A.No.695 of 2024, the I.A.No.429 of 2022 came up for hearing in O.S.598 of 2022 wherein the impugned order has now been passed making the following observations, viz., “10. This is a fit case to grant stay of execution of EP proceedings because allowing them may continue to lead multiplicity of litigation, fresh registered sale deed as per alleged collusive compromise decree is executed. 11. This is a fit case to grant stay of execution of EP proceedings because allowing them may continue to lead multiplicity of litigation, fresh registered sale deed as per alleged collusive compromise decree is executed. 11. Though learned advocate submitted that the cancellation of registration of two sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs is still subsisting is concerned, it cannot be said that plaintiffs cannot get stay of execution in the E.P. So far, D2 and D3 did not file any criminal case alleging offence of cheating against D1 as he knows registered sale deeds were already executing by him in favour of four plaintiffs and D4 in main suit, but still D1 dared to enter into compromise in that suit. Prima facie this court is satisfied with collusion among D1 to D3. 12. Hence, stay of all further proceedings in EP.No.4/ 2021 (renumbered as EP.No.1528/ 2022) and pending on the file of learned IX ADJ, RR District is granted until further orders of this court because alleged ground of collusion is a triable issue and it has to be adjudicated after full length trial.” It is this order which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had taken the Court through the orders those were passed in series of litigation that took place between the parties and couple of civil suits that are still pending consideration before the Trial Court. 9. Further, during the course of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court the two certified copies of the impugned order those which were issued on different dates and upon comparison of the impugned order their reflects changes in the contents of the impugned order at various places, and with the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel wanted to attribute many things. Upon verification and comparison of the two certified copies, the Court also finds substantial changes at various places in the certified copy that was issued subsequently. Though the intention of the Trial Court in issuance of the subsequent certified copy does not seem to be with any mala fides, yet the said outcome requires consideration, and in the opinion of this Court the same shall be taken up on the administrative side. 10. Though the intention of the Trial Court in issuance of the subsequent certified copy does not seem to be with any mala fides, yet the said outcome requires consideration, and in the opinion of this Court the same shall be taken up on the administrative side. 10. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, what is necessary to be considered and appreciated in the factual backdrop is the order passed by the Trial Courtso far as staying the execution proceedings being proper, legal and justified. 11. Undoubtedly, a suit was filed i.e. O.S.No.29 of 2016 which got decided by way of compromise decree dated 29.12.2020. The said compromise decree is under challenge in O.S.No.598 of 2022. In the said suit, the impugned order has been passed and the registered sale deed as an outcome of the compromise decree that was executed pursuant to the impugned order granted to the petitioner in the said O.S.No.29 of 2016 is also under challenge in O.S.No.149 of 2018 where there is a prayer for the cancellation of the sale deed. This suit is also pending consideration. Thus, at this juncture, if the execution proceedings are permitted to be carried out, the Trial Court was justified in making the observation that it can lead to further multiplicity of litigation in the event of further sale deeds being executed. 12. What has also to be visualised is the fact that in the event of O.S.No.149 of 2018 getting allowed, the sale deed that was executed pursuant to the interim orders passed in O.S.No.29 of 2016 would be set aside, leading to subsequent sale deeds if any also being held to be bad and void ab initio that there may be many more cases challenging the subsequent sale deeds. 13. The fact which is also apparently reflected from the proceedings itself is that the suit schedule premises is even today reflected in the prohibition list. The petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property. In the said circumstances, ensuring that the matter does not get further precipitated, the Trial Court found it proper to stay execution proceedings as of now. The said order of the Trial Court cannot be prima facie found fault with, nor can it be said to be contrary to law of for that matter contrary to the factual matrix of the case. The said order of the Trial Court cannot be prima facie found fault with, nor can it be said to be contrary to law of for that matter contrary to the factual matrix of the case. Rather, the view of the Trial Court was primarily ensuring that a balance is maintained so that further complications and further damage is not caused. 14. What is also necessary to be considered is that when the Writ Appeal was being disposed of on 20.06.2024, the Division Bench in very categorical terms had affirmed the order of the learned Single Bench so far as the question of the sale deed dated 20.11.2017. Further, as regards the execution of the sale deed in question was kept open to be agitated by the parties in appropriate proceedings, which means even the Division Bench in Writ Appeal was of the view that the execution proceedings would continue to be agitated by the aggrieved person and that the said execution proceedings would have to be dealt with and decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 15. When the Trial Court finds the issue of compromise decree dated 20.12.2020 to be a triable issue and for which there is requirement of adducing evidence by both the parties to substantiate their respective contentions, it is always in the interest of justice to avoid further complications and further third party rights being created leading to further rise of litigations and also can lead to further alienation of the suit schedule property either as a whole or in part to different persons leading further multiplicity of the litigations, and in that circumstances, if the execution proceedings have been stalled for the moment it cannot be said that the order so passed by the Trial Court is in excess of jurisdiction warranting interference at this juncture. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner herein warranting interference to the impugned order. The impugned order, therefore, stands affirmed. The Revision Petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.However, there shall be no order as to costs.