ORDER : This is a revision application against the order of the lower Court passed in Civil Suit No.768 of 49 staying under O.21, R.29 the execution proceedings of a decree pending in the Court of City Civil Judge, Lashkar. One Ganesh Ram, who is now dead and whose legal representative Musammat Sugandho is the non-applicant in the petition before me, filed a suit lor partition against Bhawani Sahay on 17-12-49 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Lashkar. In the re-organisation of the Courts that took place in 1948, the Court of Sub-Judge was replaced by the Court of City Civil Judge, First Class, Lashkar and the plaintiff' s suit is now pending in the Court of City Civil Judge, Lashkar. At present, suits up to the valuation of Rs.200/-instituted in the Court of City Civil Judge, Lashkar are being tried by Mr. Ram Krishan Gupta as Additional Civil Judge, Lashkar. Mr. Gupta is also the Civil Judge, First Class, Gwalior. But he is trying the suit out of which this revision petition arises as Additional City Civil Judge, Lashkar. On 4-11-47, the defendant in the suit Bhawani Sahay had obtained from the Gwalior State Judicial Committee a decree in his favour and against Ganesh Ram for demolition of a wall alleged to have been constructed by Ganesh Ram on a piece of land jointly owned by him and Bhawani Sahay. The suit, in which the Gwalior Judicial Committee, in the exercise of its revisional powers, passed the decree, was also instituted in the Court of Sub-Judge, Gwalior. The execution proceedings of that decree were started by Bhawani Sahay, the decree-holder, on 1-12-49 in the Court of City Civil Judge, Lashkar. These execution proceedings were stayed by the order of the lower Court which is under revision. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that O.21, R.29 has no applicability to the present case as the Court in which the plaintiff non-applicant has sued, is not the Court which had passed the decree in favour of the petitioner and that in any case the order staying the execution of the decree can only be made by the Court in the execution proceedings and not in the suit proceedings. 3. I am unable to accept the contention of the applicant. 3. I am unable to accept the contention of the applicant. The suit, in which the Judicial Committee ultimately passed the decree in favour of Bhawani Sahay, was instituted in the Court of Sub-Judge, Gwalior, and at the time of making the application for the execution of that decree, the City Civil Judge, Lashkar would have had jurisdiction to try Bhawani Sahay's suit. It is clear that under S.37, Civil P.C., the Court of Civil Judge, Lashkar must be regarded as the Court which passed the decree in favour of Bhawani Sahay. The plaintiff non-applicant's suit was also instituted in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Gwalior and is now pending before the City Civil Judge, Lashkar. It is true that the plaintiff non-applicant's suit is being tried by Mr. Gupta as an Additional City Civil Judge and the execution proceedings of the decree in favour of Bhawani Sahay are pot pending before him, but before the City Civil Judge. This fact does not, in my opinion, take away the jurisdiction of Mr. Gupta to pass an order under O.21, R.29 to stay the execution proceedings pending before the City Civil Judge, Lashkar. Order 21, R.29 simply refers to the Court in which a suit is pending against the holder of a decree of such Court. It has no reference to the personality of the Judge presiding over such Court. If there are two or more Judges attached to a Court, each one of them exercises the powers and jurisdiction of one and the same Court and not of the different Court. It cannot, therefore, be maintained that the Court of Additional City Civil Judge, Lashkar presided over by Mr. Gupta in which the plaintiff non-applicant' s suit is pending is different from the Court of City Civil Judge, Lashkar presided over by another Judge where the execution proceedings are pending. For the purpose of O.21, R.29, it is not necessary that the execution proceedings should be pending before the same Judge in whose Court the suit is pending. It is sufficient if the suit is pending in any Court against the, holder of a decree of such Court. In my opinion, the Additional City Civil Judge Mr. Gupta had, therefore, jurisdiction to pass an order under O.21, R.29. 4. It is sufficient if the suit is pending in any Court against the, holder of a decree of such Court. In my opinion, the Additional City Civil Judge Mr. Gupta had, therefore, jurisdiction to pass an order under O.21, R.29. 4. As to the contention of the petitioner that the application for stay of execution decree ought to have been made not to the Court of Additional City Civil Judge in which the suit is pending, but ought to have been made to the Court of City Civil Judge, Lashkar in which the execution proceedings are pending, I think on a plain reading of O.21, R.29, it is clear that it is the Court in which the suit is pending that has jurisdiction to pass an order under O.21, R.29. It is true that R.29 is one of the rules of O.21 which deals with the execution of decree and order. But this fact alone cannot, in my opinion justify the conclusion that under this rule, the stay of the execution of a decree can be ordered only by the Court executing the decree. There is no indication whatsoever in the rule itself that the application for stay of execution must be made to the Court in execution proceedings. On the other hand, it is clear from the wording of R.29 that it is the Court in which the suit is pending that has jurisdiction to stay execution of the decree. I am aware of the decisions in the cases of - 'O. Steel and Co. v. Ichchamoyi', 13 Cal 111 (A); - 'Lingum Krishna v. K. Sivaramayya', 20 Mad 366 (B); - 'Mahesh Chandra v. Jogendralal', AIR 1928 Cal 222 (C) in which an application under O.21, R.29 was made to the Court in execution proceedings and it was held that an appeal lay against the order of stay passed in execution proceedings. The point before me did not arise in those cases, which cannot for that reason be regarded as authorities to support the view that an application under O.21, R.29 must be made to the Court in the execution proceedings. The point before me did not arise in those cases, which cannot for that reason be regarded as authorities to support the view that an application under O.21, R.29 must be made to the Court in the execution proceedings. On the other hand in the case of - 'Narsidas v. Manahar Singh', AIR 1931 Bom 247 (D), the question, whether under O.21, R.29 an application for the stay of execution of a decree must be made in the execution proceedings or in the suit proceedings, was considered and it was held by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that the Court in which the suit is pending has jurisdiction to pass an order under that Rule. I think, therefore, that Mr. Gupta before whom the plaintiff non-applicant's suit is pending had jurisdiction to pass the order staying the execution of the decree. 5. No other point was urged on behalf of the petitioner. 6. For the above reasons, I dismiss this petition. There was no appearance on behalf of the non-applicant and there will be no order as to the costs of this petition.