ORDER : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the Objector for quashing the order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Execution Case No.06 of 2003 by which the petition under Order XXI Rule 26 read with Section 151 of the CPC to stay the execution proceeding till the conclusion of Title Suit No.57 of 2020, has been rejected. 2. Aforesaid execution case is for execution of final decree passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.251 of 1983 in which mother of these petitioners was impleaded as a party in the preliminary decree which was drawn on 24.01.1989. It was inter alia provided that the land sold by Ratni Devi (mother of petitioners herein) to defendant No.2- Nanki Devi and her sons in excess of her share will be allotted to the share of defendant No.2 and she will also get her share after adjustment to that extent. 3. Defendant No.2 being the purchaser of the share Ratni Devi, was entitled to corresponding share in the final decree. However, the said share was not apportioned to defendant No.2, in the final decree proceeding and the share of defendant No.2 was partitioned among other shareholders. It is contended by the petitioners that no notice was issued while drawing final decree and they came to know about it only when it was put for execution in 2007. 4. Final decree was consequently challenged in Title Suit No.159 of 2007 which was withdrawn with permission to file it afresh. Consequently the Petitioners filed Title Suit No.57 of 2020. 5. As the executing court was proceeding ahead with the decree, therefore a petition was filed to stay the execution of the final decree under Order XXI Rules 26 and 97 of the CPC, pending the disposal of the suit. 6. This objection petition was rejected against which Civil Misc. Petition No. 690 of 2024 was filed which was dismissed by order dated 06.09.2024. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, petitioners moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 25660 of 2024 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.05.2025 with following observation:- “We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment, particularly, in view of the suit filed by the petitioners. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, petitioners moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 25660 of 2024 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.05.2025 with following observation:- “We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment, particularly, in view of the suit filed by the petitioners. Liberty is given to the petitioners to raise all the contentions in the aforesaid suit, the impugned judgment will not stand in the way.” 8. During the pendency of the suit, a petition was filed under Order XXI Rules 26 and 97 of the CPC to stay the execution proceeding till the disposal of the suit. 9. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the claim of title on the basis of sale deed was admitted in Title (Partition) Suit No. 251 of 1983 and the share was also allotted to the mother of these petitioners as is evident in the preliminary decree. The final decree which was drawn, is not in consonance with the preliminary decree as the share of the petitioners have been obliterated and allotted to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit has been filed by the petitioners and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has accepted that the entire matter can be raised in the suit and the impugned judgment will not come in its way. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties raises no serious objection to stay the execution proceeding, however with a direction to dispose of the suit within stipulated period of time as the execution is pending since 2003. 11. Litigation in the present case is festering for more than four decades, despite the fact the original partition suit was disposed of in the year 1989 and preliminary decree was drawn. The delay has occasioned on account of non-observation of some of the fundamental canons to be followed by the trial court in seisin with the matter while making final decree. It has been held by the Apex Court in Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna & Others , (2009) 9 SCC 689 . 25. Because of the artificial division of suits into preliminary decree proceedings, final decree proceedings and execution proceedings, many trial Judges tend to believe that adjudication of the right being the judicial function, they should concentrate on that part. 25. Because of the artificial division of suits into preliminary decree proceedings, final decree proceedings and execution proceedings, many trial Judges tend to believe that adjudication of the right being the judicial function, they should concentrate on that part. Consequently, adequate importance is not given to the final decree proceedings and execution proceedings which are considered to be ministerial functions. The focus is on disposing of cases rather than ensuring that the litigant gets the relief. But the focus should not only be on early disposal of cases, but also on early and easy securement of relief for which the party approaches the court. Even among lawyers, importance is given only to securing of a decree, not securing of relief. Many lawyers handle suits only till preliminary decree is made, then hand it over to their juniors to conduct the final decree proceedings and then give it to their clerks for conducting the execution proceedings. 31. Insofar as final decree proceedings are concerned, we see no reason for even legislative intervention. As the provisions of the Code stand at present, initiation of final decree proceedings does not depend upon an application for final decree for initiation (unless the local amendments require the same). As noticed above, the Code does not contemplate filing an application for final decree. Therefore, when a preliminary decree is passed in a partition suit, the proceedings should be continued by fixing dates for further proceedings till a final decree is passed. It is the duty and function of the court. Performance of such function does not require a reminder or nudge from the litigant. The mindset should be to expedite the process of dispute resolution. Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Another vs Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Others , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 737 “35. We are of the view that once a preliminary decree is passed by the Trial Court, the court should proceed with the case for drawing up the final decree suo motu. After passing of the preliminary decree, the Trial Court has to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC.” 12. Thus, from the above it is apparent that it was for the trial court to draw a final decree as per the preliminary decree, and a party whose share had crystallized in preliminary decree could not have been deprived of his share in the final decree. Thus, from the above it is apparent that it was for the trial court to draw a final decree as per the preliminary decree, and a party whose share had crystallized in preliminary decree could not have been deprived of his share in the final decree. It is rather strange that a separate suit has been filed to object the final decree. 13. Be that as it may, in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners can work out their remedy in Title Suit No.57 of 2020, which will be disposed of within three months. In the meantime the execution proceeding in Execution Case No.06 of 2003 is stayed. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.