JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard Mr. Rahul Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned counsel through video conferencing for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Akash Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5. 2. Notice upon respondent no. 2 has been validly served. 3. The petitioner has chosen not to substitute the respondent no. 3 who has left for his heavenly abode and that is recorded in th the order dated 11 November, 2024. 4. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 22.07.2024 passed in Execution Case No. 22 of 2013. 5. Mr. Rahul Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in Execution Case, the petitioner has filed the petition under Order 21 Rule 97 which has been admitted by the learned Court by the order dated 26.06.2024. He submits that execution case was proceeded in view of that, for stay of Execution petition under Order 21 Rule 26 read with Section 151 C.P.C, was filed on 18.04.2024, which has been decided by the learned court by the order dated 22.07.2024. He submits that the miscellaneous case is still pending and in view of that, the said petition was filed. However, the learned court has rejected the said petition, saying that the petition is not maintainable. He submits that the miscellaneous case is pending and in view of that, miscellaneous case is required to be decided first. 6. Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing through video conferencing for respondent no. 1 submits that there is no illegality in the said order and the learned Court has rightly passed the order. He submits that so far as the direction of the learned Court in the impugned order in paragraph 11 is concerned, he submits that the decree holder will appear in the miscellaneous case so that it can be decided. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 has submitted that he will appear in the miscellaneous case. 8. In view of the above, it transpired that the learned Court has dealt with the provision of Order 21 Rule 26 and the reason in paragraph no. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 has submitted that he will appear in the miscellaneous case. 8. In view of the above, it transpired that the learned Court has dealt with the provision of Order 21 Rule 26 and the reason in paragraph no. 9 has been recorded saying that the said provision of law speaks of stay the execution of decree of the scheduled property upon showing sufficient cause and for that he is required to apply before the Court first instance or appellate court. At this stage, Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta confined his prayer for disposal of the miscellaneous case in light of the observation made in paragraph no. 11 of the said impugned order. 9. There is no illegality in the order of the learned Court and no interference is required. As such this petition is dismissed with liberty to the parties to take endeavor for the disposal of the miscellaneous case as observed in the impugned order at paragraph no. 11.