Judgment :- 1. The Civil Revision Petitioner has challenged the fair and final order dated 19.11.2008 passed in R.E.A.No.51 of 2008 in R.E.P.No.19 of 2005 in O.S.No.389 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur. 2. The revision petitioner has filed an application in R.E.A.No.51 of 2008 under Order 21 Rule 29 of Civil Procedure Code to stay all further proceedings in R.E.P.No.19 of 2005 in O.S.No.389 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.136 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur. 3. According to the revision petitioner, in order to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.389 of 2004, the first respondent filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.19 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur. The first respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.389 of 2004 for specific performance and the said suit was decreed ex-parte. However, the revision petitioner has filed the present suit in O.S.No.136 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur for declaration and permanent injunction. 4. Since the first respondent filed an execution petition in R.E.P.No.19 of 2005, the revision petitioner filed an application in R.E.A.No.51 of 2008 in R.E.P.No.19 of 2005 under Order 21 Rule 29 of Civil Procedure Code to stay the execution proceedings till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.136 of 2008. 5. The Trial court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments of both sides, dismissed the petition finding that the petitioner has not filed any application to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.389 of 2004. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner was not a party in O.S.No.389 of 2004. So far as in O.S.No.136 of 2008, the revision petitioner claimed title in respect of the suit property in O.S.No.389 of 2004. Therefore, if the execution petition is allowed to be proceeded, it will cause prejudice to the revision petitioner. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the first respondent, if the execution proceeding is stayed till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.136 of 2008. That apart, the revision petitioner filed the suit in the year 2008 and the defendant therein also filed the written statement and contesting the suit. 6. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the first respondent, if the execution proceeding is stayed till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.136 of 2008. That apart, the revision petitioner filed the suit in the year 2008 and the defendant therein also filed the written statement and contesting the suit. 6. Having regard to the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2008, I direct the trial court to dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with law on or before 30.6.2011 without being influenced by the observations made in the present civil revision petition. 7. With the above observation, the fair and final order dated 19.11.2008 passed in R.E.A.No.51 of 2008 in R.E.P.No.19 of 2005 in O.S.No.389 of 2004 on the file of the District Musnif, Hosur is set aside. The further proceedings in R.E.P.No.19 of 2005 in O.S.No.389 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur is hereby stayed till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.136 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 2009 is closed.