M. P. CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THESE two Civil Revision Petitions are clubbed together and disposed of by the following order as they are connected to each other. ( 2 ) THE revision petitioner obtained an ex-parte decree of eviction of the respondent-tenant. He also took out execution of such a decree, and even delivery warrant was issued and the court bailiff had taken possession. Before that point of time, or at that point of time, the tenant-respondent instituted a revision petition before the District Judge and later choose to seek the remedy by resto-ration under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC. In those proceedings, he made an application numbered as I. A. II by which he sought stay of further proceedings in the execution matter pending before the Court. That has been allowed. Therefore, the petitioner feels aggrieved. ( 3 ) I. A. III was another application made by the tenant in the same Court seeking that the key delivered by the bailiff of the Court to the Sheristedar may be returned to him. That also has been allowed. Therefore, the petitioner feels doubly aggrieved. ( 4 ) IN this Court, Mr. U. L. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for petitioner has contended that the Court could not have granted a stay in proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC staying the execution proceedings. I do not think that that the proposition should be accepted by this Court. If the Court is not able to stay the operation of the exparte order which itself had issued resulting in an executable decree, the proceedings under order 9, Rule 13 CPC, becomes illusory inasmuch as the exparte decree is allowed to be executed, there is nothing which is required to be restored. Therefore, the court has the power to stay its exparte decree while it is considering the question to recalling the earlier order passed by it allowing the eviction. Therefore, there is no merit in Civil revision Petition No. 4369 of 1988 and it is rejected. ( 5 ) IN so far as Civil Revision Petition No. 4439 of 1988 is concerned, admittedly delivery was not given to the decree holder, because the Court itself had issued say of the order under execution. In such an event, returning of the key amounting to restitution does not arise. ( 5 ) IN so far as Civil Revision Petition No. 4439 of 1988 is concerned, admittedly delivery was not given to the decree holder, because the Court itself had issued say of the order under execution. In such an event, returning of the key amounting to restitution does not arise. If I. A. II was allowed first and the order of eviction passed exparte was stayed, all proceedings taken pursuant thereto are proceedings taken in support of the decree operation of which has been stayed. Therefore, the key which is now said to be in the custody of the Sheristedar of the Court is really in unlawful custody. The defendant is entitled to possession of his premises as long as there is no operative order of eviction against him. Therefore, there is no merit in c. R. P. 4439 of 1988 either. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, "before dismising this revision also, I must make the following observations:- the Court which is seized of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, should put the defendant- respondent -petitioner on terms so that, the interests of the plaintiff or petitioner do not suffer. It is part of the judicial function which is brought out by the language employed in Rule 13. Therefore, the revision petitioner is free to move the Court by an application seeking to put the tenant on such terms as would best serve the interests of the petitioner. Subject to the above observation, both the petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed. --- *** --- .