CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is by one of the judgment-debtors who undisputedly suffered an order of eviction. He, therefore, in Ex. Case No. 639/1987 on the file of the City Civil Judge (CCH. 7) Bangalore sought by an application numbered as I. A. No. 2, stay of further execution proceedings on the ground that he had filed a suit against the decree-holder in respect of another property which was in the possession of the decree-holder and which originally belonged to the 2nd Judgment-debtor and from which he had sought eviction of the decree-holder. The Court refused to accede to that contention on the ground that it cannot go beyond the decree which it was executing and therefore once the High court had refused the judgment-debtor-1 in the case any further time beyond 31st May, 1987 it would not be proper for the executing court to accede to the contention of the 2nd judgment-debtor. In the result, I. A. No. 2 came to be dismissed. Therefore, the present revision petition under Section 115 of the C. P. C. ( 2 ) THE only proposition canvassed in this court is that under Order XXI Rule 29 of the C. P. C. the executing Court has the power to grant stay if the suit between the same parties is filed, whether in that Court or in any other Court of equal status. Such a construction may not be possible on account of language of Rule 29 of Order XXI of the C. P. C. which is as follows:"stay of execution pending suit between decree-holder and judgment-debtor. 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: (Provided that if the decree is one for payment of money, the Court shall, if it grants stay without requiring security, record its reasons for so doing ). "by the use of the words "such Court" it is clearly indicated that the suit which is filed against the decree-holder must be in the same Court which is executing the decree obtained in another suit and as correctly held by this Court in the case of Pujari Subbaiah v lakkappanavara [1982 (1) Karnataka Law journal, 20] the suit pending in "such Court" must have a bearing in regard to the matter that is being executed in another decree. In the view I have taken, I am fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of shaukat Hussain @ali Akaram and Others v smt. Bhuneshwari Devi (dead) By L. R. S. and others, AIR 1973 SC 528 in which it has been held that for the applicability of Order 21 Rule 29 of the C. P. C. there should be two simultaneous proceedings in one Court viz. , (1) a proceeding in execution of the decree of that Court started at the instance of the decree holder against the judgment-debtor and (2) a suit at the instance of the same judgment-debtor against the holder of the decree of that Court. It makes abundantly clear that Order 21 of Rule 29 of the C. P. C. is attracted only if the said conditions are satisfied and not otherwise. ( 3 ) FOR the above reasons, this revision petition is misconceived and it is rejected. --- *** --- .