JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The decree holder has approached this Court assailing the orders passed by the Courts below in Execution Case No. 2 of 2011 (Komal and another vs. Shiv Kumar), whereby the further proceedings of Execution Case pertaining to the suit property has been stayed in terms of Order 21 Rule 29 read with Allahabad Amendment. It is not being disputed that third party has also instituted a suit pertaining to the suit property, which is pending before the Competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in terms of Rule 29 of Order 21, the proceedings could have been stayed, only if, the suit proceeding is inter se parties. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the Allahabad Amendment has inserted "any person whose interest are affected by the decree" would mean that a third party suit pending for the same suit property, the Execution Court would be competent to stay further proceedings in terms of Order 21 Rule 29. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders. 6. In such circumstances, I decline to interfere with the impugned orders. 7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.