JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ. 1. This petition invoking extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court has been filed seeking to challenge the orders dated 22.12.2025, 13.01.2026 and 31.01.2026 on Exh. 9 and 11, Exh. 8 and Exh. 1 and 12; respectively. 2. Going chronologically, we may note that the order dated 22.12.2025 has been passed rejecting the application Exh. 9 filed by the petitioner herein seeking for adjournment of the execution petition on the premise that it needed time to file objection, and there was some personal difficulty of the arguing counsel and further that the arbitral award dated 06.06.2025 has been subjected to challenge by filing application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short as ‘the Act, 1996’), which is pending adjudication. 3. While rejecting the said application, it is noted by the Commercial Court in the order impugned dated 22.12.2025 that on the last date of hearing viz. 26.11.2025, an appearance pursis was filed by the learned advocate appearing for the judgment debtor alongwith an adjournment application, which was allowed granting adjournment as a last opportunity. The decree holder had also filed an application under Order XXI Rule 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment of the property of the judgment debtor and another application to close its right to file objection in the present proceedings. Considering the same, the Commercial Court has rejected the adjournment application at Exh. 11 and allowed the application filed by the decree holder at Exh. 9, closing right to file objection by the judgment debtor. 4. The subsequent order dated 13.01.2026 has been passed on Exh. 8, which is the application to issue warrant of attachment for movable properties of the judgment debtor. The said order categorically records that the learned counsel for the judgment debtor had appeared, however, he could not make any submissions whatsoever. And further noticing that the right to file objection by the judgment debtor has already been closed and there was no application by the judgment debtor to reopen the said right, the application at Exh. 8 was partly allowed issuing warrant of attachment for movable properties of the judgment debtor, as mentioned in Schedule A at Mark at 4/6. It is also noted by the Commercial Court that the decree holder had provided calculation of the decretal amount uptill 26.11.2025, which was not disputed by the judgment debtor. 8 was partly allowed issuing warrant of attachment for movable properties of the judgment debtor, as mentioned in Schedule A at Mark at 4/6. It is also noted by the Commercial Court that the decree holder had provided calculation of the decretal amount uptill 26.11.2025, which was not disputed by the judgment debtor. 5. The third order dated 31.01.2026 has been passed on Exh. 1 filed by the decree holder seeking for execution of the arbitral award along with the interest from the date of the award till realization of actual amount. The judgment debtor filed an application at Exh. 12 on 13.01.2026 under Order XXI Rule 26 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for interim stay of the order dated 13.01.2026 whereby the warrant of attachment was issued against the judgment debtor. 6. The Commercial Court has recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor is ready and willing to deposit the decretal amount within a period of 8 weeks from the date i.e. 31.01.2026. It is also noted by the Commercial Court that on the contrary, the bailiff report dated 29.01.2026 indicates that the judgment debtor had agreed to make the payment within a period of 15 days. 7. Having noted the above, the Commercial Court recorded that the judgment debtor is a Government undertaking and therefore, time is to be provided for obtaining approval from higher authorities for deposit of the decretal amount and hence, in the interest of justice, four weeks time has been granted to the judgment debtor to comply with the undertaking given by it in the application. The judgment debtor is, therefore, directed to comply with the directions given on 31.01.2026 without seeking further time. While saying so, the Commercial Court has kept the order dated 13.01.2026 of issuance of warrant of attachment in abeyance till the next date of hearing, till i.e. 02.03.2026. 8. From the contents of the aforesaid orders of the Commercial Court, subject matter of challenge herein, it is evident that, on the one hand, the judgment debtor had given an undertaking before the Commercial Court by filing an application Exh. 8. From the contents of the aforesaid orders of the Commercial Court, subject matter of challenge herein, it is evident that, on the one hand, the judgment debtor had given an undertaking before the Commercial Court by filing an application Exh. 12 under Order XXI (21) Rule 26 while seeking for interim stay of the order of the warrant of attachment stating that the decretal amount would be deposited within a period of eight weeks and, on the other hand, when four weeks time was granted by the Court to seek approval of the higher authorities to comply with the undertaking given in the application, instead of proceeding to take approval of the competent authority, the present petition has been filed on 21.02.2026 challenging the aforesaid three orders. As a result of filing of the present petition, as intimated to us, the judgment debtor has succeeded in getting one more adjournment by filing an application seeking for extension of time on the date fixed on 02.03.2026. 9. On a pointed query made by the Court, Ms. Dimple A. Thaker, learned counsel for the petitioner showed ignorance about any further undertaking given by the petitioner before the Executing Court, on the approval of the higher authority in compliance of the order dated 31.01.2026. 10. Taking note of the above, all contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the orders passed by the Executing Court in Commercial Execution Case No. 10 of 2025, cannot be looked into. 11. The petitioner who is a judgment debtor cannot be permitted to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the orders passed by the Executing Court, simply for the fact that it has not complied with the directions issued by the Commercial Court in the order 31.01.2026. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner about the maintainability of execution application, having been filed prior to the expiry of period of 90 days as per Section 36 (1) of the Act, 1996, is not worthy of consideration. The submissions made about the non delivery of the arbitral award to the competent officer of the petitioner - company being subject matter of consideration in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, cannot be touched upon. 12. With the above, we do not find it a fit case to interfere. The submissions made about the non delivery of the arbitral award to the competent officer of the petitioner - company being subject matter of consideration in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, cannot be touched upon. 12. With the above, we do not find it a fit case to interfere. The present petition is dismissed, accordingly. 13. It is clarified that the Executing Court and the Court under Section 34 of the Act, both shall deal with the matter independently without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.