ORDER : 1. Defendant, who suffered decree filed the above revision against the order dated 15.03.2022 in E.A.No.5 of 2022 in E.P.No.8 of 2021 in O.S.No.239 of 2019 (Old O.S.No.71 of 2014) on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Gannavaram. 2. 1st Respondent/plaintiff filed suit against the revision petitioner and 2nd respondent for declaration of title and consequential relief of delivery of possession of schedule property and also to render accounts. 3. By judgment dated 10.01.2020 suit was decreed by the trial Court. Trial Court directed the defendants to vacate the schedule property within 60 days from the date of judgment, failing which plaintiff is at liberty to recovery the same under due process of law. Pursuant to decree, plaintiff filed E.P.No.8 of 2021, wherein the revision petitioner herein filed E.A.No.5 of 2022 under Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC to stay further proceedings in E.P.No.8 of 2021 till disposal of stay petition in I.A.No.179 of 2021 in A.S.No.47 of 2021 on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Gudiwada. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that against the judgment and decree, revision petitioner/1st judgment debtor filed A.S.No.47 of 2021 in the year 2020 and later filed I.A.No.179 of 2021 for grant of stay and the said petition is being adjourned enabling the respondent/plaintiff to file counter. 1st respondent/plaintiff while taking time to file counter in I.A.No.179 of 2021, is pressing for disposal of E.P.No.8 of 2021 and hence, this application is filed to grant stay of execution of decree till disposal of I.A.No.179 of 2021. 5. Counter was filed by 1st respondent/plaintiff and opposed the application. 6. Trial Court by order dated 15.03.2022 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 7. Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for revision petitioner would submit that against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.239 of 2019, revision petitioner filed A.S.No.47 of 2021 and also filed I.A.No.179 of 2021 seeking stay of execution of decree. He would submit that decree holder without filing counter in I.A.No.179 of 2021 is pressing for disposal of E.P.No.8 of 2021 and hence the present application is filed. 8. The Court below on verification of docket proceedings and considering the relevant provisions, not inclined to accept the contention of petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the petition. He would submit that decree holder without filing counter in I.A.No.179 of 2021 is pressing for disposal of E.P.No.8 of 2021 and hence the present application is filed. 8. The Court below on verification of docket proceedings and considering the relevant provisions, not inclined to accept the contention of petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the petition. The Court below observed that petition under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC was filed on 16.07.2021 and no stay order was granted and the same is coming up for counters of respondents 1 and 2 therein. In fact, 1st respondent/decree holder filed vakalat on 28.09.2021. 9. In an application filed under Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC, the Court on sufficient cause being shown stay the execution of 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 etc. In the case on hand, judgment debtor filed A.S.No.47 of 2021 on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada and also filed I.A.No.179 of 2021. Decree holder filed vakalat on 28.09.2021 and the matter is being adjourned for filing of counter. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC is no application. Having been filed I.A.No.179 of 2021, the revision petitioner could have taken steps to get the same disposed of by the lower appellate Court. Trial Court by considering the scope of Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC and also pendency of appeal, dismissed the application. Since there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court, it does not warrant any interference of this Court. 10. The scope of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was considered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 675 . The order of the lower is neither perverse nor amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested with it. Hence, the order of the trial Court dismissing the petition does not call for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.