ORDER : Vijaykumar A. Patil, J. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.01.2018 passed on the memo dated 20.08.2016 filed by the respondent No.2(a) and 2(f) in Ex.P.No.2710/2015 by the XXXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard. 3. Sri.B.K.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed an execution petition seeking to execute the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2010 passed in O.S.No.14/1980 and in the said judgment at paragraph 20, the Court held that the suit schedule property is nothing but item No.5 mentioned in the written statement in O.S.No.12/1980 and the claim of the defendant No.2 in this suit i.e., O.S.No.12/1980 is rejected insofar as item No.5 of the written statement schedule property is concerned. 4. It is submitted that the petitioners filed O.S.No.12/1980 which came to be decreed vide judgment dated 21.03.1998 in favour of the petitioners and the legal heirs of the defendant No.2 filed appeal in RFA No.526/1998 which came to be partly allowed. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.14/1980 was not the subject matter in RFA No.526/1998 and the pending petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, there is no impediment to proceed with the execution to execute the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.14/1980. However, the Executing Court, based on the memo filed by the respondent Nos.2(a) and 2(f) dismissed the execution petition for the time being with liberty to file a fresh execution petition after the result of the special leave petition. It is also submitted that the Executing Court, if it had come to the conclusion that the subject matter of the execution is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would have stayed the execution proceedings, hence the dismissal of the execution petition is incorrect. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by directing the Executing Court to proceed with the pending execution in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, Smt.Nidhishree, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2(b) to 2(g) submits that in a suit filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.12/1980, the petitioners sought the relief that the plaintiffs who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased K.C.Ramaiah are entitled to a half share along with these respondents in all the assets and the properties of the firm and other prayers. In the said suit, schedule property consists of 10 items of the properties. The answering respondents filed written statement as well as the counter- claim. It is submitted that the answering respondents have taken a stand that there are other joint family properties and they are entitled to a share in the same and in the counter- claim, Schedule consists of 45 items of the properties. It is further submitted that item No.5 in the counter-claim is the Godown No.11, Kumbarpet, Bengaluru which is the suit schedule property in O.S.No.14/1980. It is also submitted that O.S.No.12/1980 was partly decreed. Being aggrieved, the legal heirs of K.L.Venugopal filed RFA No.526/1998 which was allowed-in-part. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed special leave petition. The subject matter in O.S No.14/1980 is the subject matter of the pending special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking note of the same, the Trial Court has rightly closed the execution petition with liberty. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the legal heirs of the respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 7. The petitioners filed O.S.No.12/1980 seeking a declaration that they are the legal heirs of K.C.Ramaiah and are entitled to a half share along with the K.L.Venugopal and sought other reliefs. In the said suit, 10 items of the properties are covered. In the said suit, legal heirs of K.L.Venugopal filed counter-claim indicating the Schedule Property consisting of 45 items claiming that they are entitled to share in the items mentioned in the suit schedule property in the plaint as well as in the counter-claim. The Trial Court partly allowed O.S.No.12/1980 vide judgment and decree dated 21.03.1998. Being aggrieved, the legal heirs of K.L.Venugopal preferred an appeal in RFA No.526/1998. The said appeal was allowed-in-part vide judgment dated 16.04.2009. The petitioners challenged the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.12645/2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the interim order on 13.05.2010. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereinbelow: "In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as obtaining today with regard to the properties in question." 8. The petitioners challenged the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.12645/2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the interim order on 13.05.2010. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereinbelow: "In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as obtaining today with regard to the properties in question." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid order has directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the properties in question. Admittedly, the petitioners as well as the legal heirs of K.L.Venugopal are the parties and the suit schedule property in O.S.No.14/1980 i.e. house bearing municipal door No.11 (old No.13) situated at Kumbarpet, Bengaluru is the same property as the schedule property in the counter-claim filed by the legal heirs of K.L.Venugopal in O.S.No.12/1980 which was the subject matter of RFA No.526/1998. Hence, the suit schedule property in O.S.No.14/1980 is the property covered under the order dated 13.05.2010 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.12645/2010. The Executing Court, taking note of the same has rightly closed the execution proceedings with an express liberty to present the execution petition subject to the result of the special leave petition. No prejudice is caused to the petitioners in view of closure of execution petition for the time being. I do not find any error or perversity in the impugned order calling for interference in this petition. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.