Judgment 1. THIS is an application under section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure and is directed against an order dated May 19,1984 passed in Misc. Case No. 43 of 1983 of the 1st Court of munsif at Alipore dismissing the petitioners' application under Order 21 Rule 29 of the code of Civil Procedure. The opposite party by lodging a caveat is opposing the application. 2. THE undisputed facts leading to the pre sent application may be briefly stated as follows: The opposite party instituted a suit against the petitioners being. Title Suit no. 102 of 1973 for eviction. The petitioners were contesting the suit. The petitioners' defence against delivery of possession was struck out under section 17 (3)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and eventually the suit was decreed on 4. 6. 1975. The petitioners thereafter, after lapse of nearly one year filed the Title Suit no. 214 of 1976 praying for a declaration that the decree obtained in title Suit No. 102 of 1973 was a nullity. In the mean time the decree holder filed an execution the petitioners after filing the Suit, no. 214 of 1976 filed an application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and got an interim order in their favour. On appeal the said order was vacated against which the petitioner moved this court in revision being Civil Revision case no. 2476 of 1980. The revision case was also dismissed. Thereafter the petitioners filed an objection under section 47 of the code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the execution case. The objection was dismissed against which the petitioners moved this court in its revisional jurisdiction and the revisional application too was summarily dismissed. Thereafter petitioners filed an application under Order 21 Rule 29 of the code of Civil Procedure for staying the execution of the decree passed in Title Suit no. 102 of 1973. Learned Munsif by the impugned order, after reciting the facts of the case felt disinclined to allow the prayer and rejected the application. Hence the present application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As already indicated above the decree-holder-opposite party has lodged caveat and is opposing this application. 3. MR. 102 of 1973. Learned Munsif by the impugned order, after reciting the facts of the case felt disinclined to allow the prayer and rejected the application. Hence the present application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As already indicated above the decree-holder-opposite party has lodged caveat and is opposing this application. 3. MR. Chakravarty in support of the petition contends that the earlier steps taken by the judgment debtor petitioners, might have been ill advised but that the proper step now taken by filing an application under order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to have been allowed arid that this was the proper remedy available to the petitioner. Order 21 Rule 29 of the code of Civil Procedure provides that where a suit is pending in any court against the holder of a decree of such court or of a decree which is being executed by such court on the part of the person against whom the decree was passed, the court may, on such terms as to security or otherwise stay the execution of the decree until the pending suit has been decided. It is clear upon the terms of the Rule that the power to stay the discretionary and not that in every case where the subsequent suit is filed against the holder of a decree, execution of a decree of the earlier suit must have to be invariably stayed. What the circumstances are under which the execution of a decree may be stayed, depend on the facts of each particular case. There Is no fixed guideline on the point nor does Order 21 Rule 29 throw any light on the point. One thing however is clear that some case for stay must have to be made out. It can not be demanded as a matter of course Mr. Chakravarty In support of his contention referred to two decisions of the Patna High Court reported in AIR 1975 patna 110 (Smt Ramkumri Debi vs. Tarakeswar Nathpandey and on) and AIR 1975 Patna page 307 (Subhas Kumar Singh and or a. vs. Shea Balak Singh and others. The former is a case which does not really touch the point at issue. The former is a case which does not really touch the point at issue. In the later case all that has been said is that the petitioner has to make out a sufficient cause and such cause said to have been established if the party is able to prove that he would incur submitation loss that there are fairly arguable questions and thus a substantial case to be considered and that the petitioner has come without unreasonable delay. 11 has further been held In this decision that it cannot be said in view of the power being discretionary that the court was bound to stay the execution without even sufficient cause being there. 4. THE case that has been made out appear to be similar to he case made out in support of the application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 as also in the application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In both these proceedings the plea taken by the petitioner judgment debtors was found to be not sustainable. In that context it car not be said that the petitioners have succeeded in making out a sufficient cause for stay of the execution. That apart, the application has been made after a considerable delay and that too after unsuccessfully trying to avoid the decree in various other ways. That being the situation I do not think that there is any case for interference in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the order impugned. The application is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Let the order be communicated to the court below as expeditiously as possible. Application dismissed.