ORDER The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is: whether the Executing Court under Order 21, Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code can stay the execution proceedings till the disposal of the appeal to be preferred by a judgment-debtor subsequent to filing of the execution. 2. The facts leading to this case are; the petitioner has obtained a decree against the respondents in Civil Suit No. 71 of 1996 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jallandar for recovery of Rs. 37,450/-. The respondents-defendants are the residents of Sindhanur District. The petitioner-decree-holder filed an application for transfer of the decree for execution. Accordingly, the decree was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sindhanur, in Execution Petition No. 17 of 2003. After receipt of the notice from the Executing Court, the respondents-judgment-debtors filed an application under Order 21, Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code to stay the execution of the decree till the disposal of the appeal in R.C.A. No. 10 of 2004 filed before the District Judge, Jallandar contending that the judgment-debtors were not served with suit summons and that the decree-holder has obtained an ex parte decree in view of the arrest notice issued to the judgment-debtors. Having coming to know of such a decree, the judgment-debtors have already filed an appeal before the District Judge, Jallandar and therefore, the execution petition has to be stayed till the disposal of the appeal filed by them before the Court of Jallandar. 3. This application is opposed by the decree-holder on the ground that the application is filed only to protract the proceedings and that the provisions of Order 21, Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the petitioner requested the Court to dismiss the petition. 4. The learned Judge, who heard the matter has allowed the application of the respondents herein on 30th July, 2004 holding that there is no bar for Executing Court to stay the execution proceedings, when the Appellate Court has not granted any order of stay. Therefore, the application of the respondents was allowed subject to the respondents producing solvent surety to the extent of the decretal amount. This order is called in question in this writ petition. 5. Therefore, the application of the respondents was allowed subject to the respondents producing solvent surety to the extent of the decretal amount. This order is called in question in this writ petition. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the application filed by the respondents was not maintainable before the Trial Court, since the respondents had already filed an appeal before the District Judge, Jallandar against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jallandar. According to him, it was for the respondents to file an application under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code in the appeal filed by them before the Court of District Judge, Jallandar and to obtain an order of stay. When once an appeal is filed by them, they cannot file an application under Order 21, Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code. Alternatively, he contends that even if the Executing Court is of the opinion that the proceedings before it has to be stayed, the proceedings can be stayed by the Court only for a reasonable time to enable the judgment-debtor to obtain an order of stay of operation of the decree either from the Court which it had passed the decree or from the Appellate Court. According to him, the Trial Court has committed an error in granting a blanket order of stay. Therefore, he requests this Court to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the Executing Court has got ample power to stay the proceedings when the decretal amount is secured to the petitioner. According to him, as directed by the Trial Court, the respondents herein have furnished the solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Court. Therefore, he requests this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, what is required to be considered in this writ petition is; the power of Executing Court under Order 21, Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code. Order 21, Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code reads hereunder: "26. Therefore, he requests this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, what is required to be considered in this writ petition is; the power of Executing Court under Order 21, Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code. Order 21, Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code reads hereunder: "26. When Court may stay execution.-(1) The Court to which a decree has been sent for execution shall, upon sufficient cause being shown, stay the execution of such decree for a reasonable time, to enable the judgment-debtor to apply to the Court by which the decree was passed, or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution thereof, for an order to stay execution, or for any other order relating to the decree or execution which might have been made by such Court of first instance or Appellate Court if execution had been issued thereby, or if application for execution had been made thereto. (2) Where the property or person of the judgment-debtor has been seized under an execution, the Court, which issued the execution may order the restitution of such property or the discharge of such person pending the result of the application". 8. From the reading of the above provision, it is clear that the Executing Court has got power to stay the proceedings for a reasonable time only under two circumstances: (i) to approach the same Court which had passed the decree and to get an order of stay of operation of the decree; or (ii) to enable a party to file an appeal before the Appellate Court and get the stay of operation of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Only under these two circumstances: Order 21, Rule 26 can be pressed into service. The intention of the Legislature is to provide such a right to the Executing Court to enable the judgment-debtor to file an appeal and to get an order of stay for a limited period and in such circumstances, the Executing Court can stay the proceedings for a reasonable time. If the judgment-debtor has already tiled an appeal, it is for him to get an order of stay from the Appellate Court by invoking Order 41, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. If the judgment-debtor has already tiled an appeal, it is for him to get an order of stay from the Appellate Court by invoking Order 41, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. In other words, if an appeal had already been filed by the judgment-debtor, an application under Order 21, Rule 26, cannot be pressed into service. But, he can request the Appellate Court to grant the stay of operation of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. In the instant case, in the application filed under Order 21, Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, the judgment-debtors have clearly stated that they have already filed an appeal before the District Judge, Jallandar and they also furnished the appeal number. When they have already filed an appeal before the District Judge, Jallandar, it was for the judgment-debtors to request the District Judge, Jallandar to grant the stay of operation of judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Without doing so, they filed an application under Order 21, Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code before the Executing Court. Therefore, the said application was not maintainable. Even otherwise, considering the provisions of Order 21, Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Executing Court should have granted an order of stay only for a reasonable time to enable the respondents herein to get an order of stay from the Appellate Court. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the Trial Court has to be set aside. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sindhanur in Execution Petition No. 17 of 2003, dated 30th April, 2004 is hereby quashed. The rule is made absolute.