This Review petition has been filed seeking Review of order dated 10.10.2002 passed in Civil Revision No. 126/2000, on the ground that the case of the petitioner has been considered and determined vide judgement under review, taking into consideration the provision of law which was not in existence as the same stood amended. The judgement relied upon by the Court and applied to the case was also based on the original provision of law whereas the case of the petitioner should have been determined by taking into consideration the amended provision of law. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The dispute was decided by the Court with the following observations:- "It is settled position of law that only that court which passes the decree and is seized of the execution proceedings can stay the execution proceedings. This view has been held by Apex Court in AIR 1973 SC, 528 1 relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under:- "Where a money decree passed by a small cause court is transferred to regular Civil Court for execution by sale of immovable property of J.D. also files a suit in the transferee court for setting aside the decree under execution, the transferee court has no power under the terms of O.21 R.29 to stay the execution of the decree pending in its own court because the decree is not passed by that court transferor court which passed the decree did not cease to have jurisdiction to execute the decree as contemplated by S. 37. Even assuming that the transferor court caused to have jurisdiction to execute the decree, the transferee court did not become the court which passed the decree merely because under S. 42 it can exercise all the powers of the original court. It follows that the order staying the execution passed by the transferee staying the execution passed by the transferee court under O.21 R.29 was without jurisdiction and could not effect the validity of sale held in contravention of the stay order. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order, having been passed on improper exercise of jurisdiction, is set aside." 4. The dispute has been determined by the Court by applying the aforesaid judgement wherein the un-amended, original provision of law contained in Order 21 rule 29 CPC was an issue. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order, having been passed on improper exercise of jurisdiction, is set aside." 4. The dispute has been determined by the Court by applying the aforesaid judgement wherein the un-amended, original provision of law contained in Order 21 rule 29 CPC was an issue. This rule was amended by amendment Act No. 104 of 1976 by the Parliament and this amendment came to be incorporated in O 21 R 29 CPC of the State CPC in the year 1983. The scope of the amended rule has been explained in judgement reported in AIR 1978 Madrass 269. After the aforesaid amendment, the court acquires competence to stay not only the decree passed by it but also a decree passed by any other Court and transferred for execution. 5. In similar circumstances, Review petition was allowed where the judgement under review came to be decided by not referring to specific provision of law before the Court at the time of passing of the order and in review of the Court held that, such an order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the review in case titled The Custodian General & Ors v. Mohd.Syed Baba reported in AIR 1970 J&K 168. 6. In view of the above, the Review petition is allowed. Judgement dated 10.10.2002 is recalled. Registry to list the Civ. Revision No. 126/2000 accordingly.