Judgment Satya Brata Sanyal, J. 1. In this application the petitioner has questioned the propriety of the order dated 12/5/1983 (the date not mentioned in the order)whereby and whereunder the learned Munsif, Bermo has directed stay of the further proceedings of Execution Case No.3 of 1983 pending in his court. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass ; the petitioner filed a suit in the aforementioned court for eviction of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 being Title Suit No.299 of 1970. In the said suit opposite party No.1 filed an application for intervention which was dismissed. The aforementioned title suit was decreed against opposite parties Nos.2 and 3. Thereafter the opposite party No.1 filed a suit being Title Suit No.77 of 1971 in the Court of the Munsif, Bermo against the present petitioner and the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit premises. The said Title Suit No.77 of 1971 was decreed and an appeal has been preferred therefrom by the petitioner numbered as Title appeal No.5 of i976 which is pending disposal in the court of the District Judge, giridih. However, the opposite party No.1 filed anot her suit bearing Title Suit no.12 of 1983 in the Court of the Munsif, Bermo against the petitioner and the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 as also against one Santi Ram Rai. Having filed the aforementioned suit, the opposite party No.1 filed an application for stay of the proceedings of Execution Case No.3 of 1983 levied by the petitioner for executing the decree passed in his favour in Title Suit No.299 of 1970. 3. By reason of the impugned order the court below is purported to have held that in order to prevent misuse of the process of court stay of the proceedings of the aforementioned execution case till the disposal of Title Suit No.12 of 1983, is necessary. 4. Mr. Prasad learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the executing court has absolutely no jurisdiction to stay the execution proceeding on a petition filed at the instance of a third party. 5. 4. Mr. Prasad learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the executing court has absolutely no jurisdiction to stay the execution proceeding on a petition filed at the instance of a third party. 5. There is no doubt, right, title and interest of the opposite party No.1 has been declared in Title Suit No.77 of 1971, but in view of the fact that an appeal is pending therefrom, the question of right, title, interest and possession between the petitioner and the opposite party No.1 can only be decided therein. Even assuming that the Title Suit No.12 of 1983 was maintainable, the remedy which was open to the opposite party No.1 was to file an application for injunction only in the said suit or in Title Appeal No.5 of 1976. He being not a judgment-debtor in the execution case and particularly in view of the facts and the circumstances as mentioned here before, he could not have filed any application for stay of the execution proceeding in the execution case. 6. For the reasons aforementioned the revision application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.