Judgment :- 1. Revision petitioners are the defendants in O. S.265 of 1980 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum. They filed E. A. 618 of 1986 to stay further proceedings in execution of the decree in O. S.265 of 1980 till the final disposal of the partition suit O. S.728 of 1968. The learned Munsiff dismissed the petition. 2. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the property sought to be redeemed in O. S.265 of 1980 is also scheduled in O. S.728 of 1968 which is a partition suit in which they are also entitled to a share and that therefore the Court below ought to have granted stay as prayed for. It is the admitted case that in O. S.728 of 1968 a preliminary decree was passed and the matter is pending in the final decree stage. 3. Revision petitioners contend that as they are entitled to a share in the property as per the decision in O. S.728 of 1968 it is only fair and proper that further proceedings in execution of the decree in O. S.265 of 1980 is stayed till the disposal of the final decree proceedings in O. S.728 of 1968. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the executing court has considered the objection filed by the petitioners and the court ordered delivery of the property on 26-6-1986 and only at that stage E. A. 618 of 1986 was filed. 4. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether a petition under 0.21 R.29 C. P. C. can be filed at the execution side. 0.21 R.29 reads: "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, as it thinks fit, stay execution of the decree until the pending suit has been decided". From a reading of 0.21 R.29 it is clear that if a suit by a judgment-debtor is pending in a Court against the holder of a decree of that court, the execution of the decree, may be stayed until disposal of the suit. From a reading of 0.21 R.29 it is clear that if a suit by a judgment-debtor is pending in a Court against the holder of a decree of that court, the execution of the decree, may be stayed until disposal of the suit. The object of the rule is to enable the judgment debtor and the decree holder to adjust their claims against each other and to prevent multiplicity of execution proceedings. The right thus available to a judgment debtor is to make an application before the court stating that his suit is pending and praying for stay of the execution petition filed against him. Though R.29 does not provide that the application for stay should be made on the execution side and not on the original side, a reading of the Rule would show that the application can be made only on the original side. The position admits no doubt as 0.21 R.29 provides that the stay of execution of the decree can only be till the suit against the decree holder is finally decided. 0.21 R.29 cannot obviously apply to a situation where both the suits were decreed and pending in execution. 5. For the applicability of 0.21 R.29 existence of two simultaneous proceedings are indispensable. They are: (i) A proceeding in execution of the decree started at the instance of the decree holder against the judgment-debtor, and (ii) A suit at the instance of the same judgment-debtor against the decree-holder of the Court. Only if these two conditions are satisfied that the judgment-debtor can invoke 0.21 R.29 and seek stay. Even if the two conditions exist the court is not to grant stay merely for the asking. Stay can be granted only if there exists sufficient grounds and that too on imposing conditions. 6. Admittedly the execution application has been filed long after O. S.265 of 1980 was decreed. As the petition has been filed not in a suit pending before the court it is not maintainable. A petition under 0.21 R.29 can only be filed in a case where the suit is pending and not at the execution stage. The learned Munsiff has rightly dismissed S. A. 618 of 1986. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.