M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) THE learned counsel for revision petitioner is present. Learned counsel for the respondent had filed the caveat. Heard. Admitted. ( 2 ) IN this revision petition the petitioner who is not a party to the eviction decree in HRC proceedings which is being executed in Execution Case No. 4 of 1995 on the file of the Court of munsiff and JMFC. , Gundlupet has challenged the order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing IA No. VIII filed under Order 21, Rule 29 read with Section 151, CPC by the revision petitioner-applicant, praying that the proceedings in Execution case No. 4 of 1995 arising out of eviction order between the decree-holder in Execution Case No. 4 of 1995 and the judgment debtor be stayed pending disposal of Original Suit No! 1 of 1995 on the file of the. Civil Judge, Nanjangud. The learned Munsiff rejected IA No. VIII filed by the present applicant. ( 3 ) THE revision petitioner-applicant is not a party to the HRC decree which is being executed in Execution 4 of 1995. ( 4 ) THE learned Munsiff dismissed LA No. VIII filed by there vision petitioner-applicant holding that he has no right to make that prayer in IA No. VIII. He has come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner-applicant has no locus standi to pray that Execution 4 of 1995 should be stayed pending disposal of original Suit No. 1 of 1995 on the file of the Civil Judge, nanjangud between the revision petitioner-applicant and the decree-holder. As per the application of Order 21, Rule 29, CPC 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, under this rule, be stayed until the disposal of the suit. The revision petitioner-applicant is not a party to the eviction order which is being executed in Execution Case No. 4 of 1995. Clearly, the provisions of Order 21, Rule 29, CPC are not applicable. The order passed by the learned Munsiff rejecting IA No. VIII is unassailable. Hence the revision petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .