JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. Heard Sri Ramamurty PVSA, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) has been filed challenging the Order dated 03.05.2024 passed in E.P.No.8 of 2023 in O.S.No.161 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramachandrapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, erstwhile East Godavari District. 3. The petitioner is the defendant/judgment debtor. 4. The plaintiff/respondent/decree holder filed O.S.No.161 of 2013 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, for a decree of specific performance of contract. The suit was decreed on 16.11.2016. The defendant’s appeal being A.S.No.2 of 2017 was dismissed on 11.08.2022. Challenging the Appellate decree, he filed S.A.No.270 of 2024 along with an application for condonation of delay. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for condonation of delay is pending for consideration in the second appeal without any stay order. 6. The respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.8 of 2023 for execution of the decree dated 16.11.2016. In the said case, the petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 26 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of execution of the decree. 7. The said application was returned as not maintainable before the Execution Court, vide the impugned Order dated 03.05.2024. The learned senior Civil Judge’s Court directed its Office to verify the draft sale deed filed by the decree holder and nominate any Court Officer to execute the sale deed in favour of the decree holder, pursuant to the orders passed in the execution petition. 8. The learned senior Civil Judge’s Court has observed that the application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC was not maintainable, for the reason that the Execution Court was not the Court to which the decree had been sent for execution but the decree was passed by the same Court and consequently, Order 21 Rule 26 CPC was not attracted, the application was not maintainable. 9. Another ground on which the impugned order has been passed is that the petitioner’s second appeal though pending, shall not operate as a stay to stop the execution proceedings unless there was stay in view of under Order 41 Rule 5(1) CPC. 10. 9. Another ground on which the impugned order has been passed is that the petitioner’s second appeal though pending, shall not operate as a stay to stop the execution proceedings unless there was stay in view of under Order 41 Rule 5(1) CPC. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Order 21 Rule 26 CPC, application was maintainable and should have been decided on merits after numbering. The Court should have granted time to enable the petitioner to get stay order in pending S.A.No.270 of 2024. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Executing Court is vested with such jurisdiction, placing reliance in Order 41 Rule 5 (2) CPC. He submits that the Executing Court ought to have considered the application and have granted stay. 12. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record. 13. It is not disputed that the application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC was filed before the Executing Court which had passed the decree. It is admitted that the Executing Court is not different from the Court which had passed the decree and it is not a case of a decree passed by one Court being sent for execution to another Court. 14. Order 21 Rule 26 CPC reads as under: “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. (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. (3) Power to require security from, or impose conditions upon, judgment-debtor Before making an order to stay execution, or for the restitution of property or the discharge of the judgment-debtor, the Court shall require such security from, or impose such conditions upon, the judgment-debtor as it thinks fit.” 15. A bare perusal of this provision shows that it applies before the Court to which the decree has been sent for execution. 16. In Shaukat Hussain alias Ali Akram v. Smt. Bhuneshwari Devi (dead) by LRs., (1972) 2 SCC 731 with respect to the Order 21 Rule 29 CPC the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held that Rule 29 clearly shows that the power of the Court to stay execution before it flows directly from the fact that the execution is at the instance of the decree-holder whose decree had been passed by that court only. If the decree in execution was not passed by it, it had no jurisdiction to stay the execution. It was further observed that this was emphasized by Rule 26. It was held that the stay granted by the Munsif Court in that case was incompetent and without jurisdiction as the decree sought to be executed was not the decree passed by the Munsif 1st Court, Gaya, but the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Gaya passed in exercise of the Small Cause Court’s jurisdiction. With respect to Rule 26, it was observed that this Rule 26 deals with the powers and duties of a Court to which a decree has been sent for execution. Under Rule 26, that court i.e., transferee court can stay the execution of the decree transferred to it for execution for a reasonable time for the purpose as mentioned in Rule 26. 17. It is apt to refer paragraphs 6 and 7 of Shaukat Hussain Alias Ali Akram (supra) as under: “6. Order 21 CPC. deals generally with the execution of decrees and orders. That order is divided into several topics, each topic containing a number of rules. 17. It is apt to refer paragraphs 6 and 7 of Shaukat Hussain Alias Ali Akram (supra) as under: “6. Order 21 CPC. deals generally with the execution of decrees and orders. That order is divided into several topics, each topic containing a number of rules. The first four topics cover Rules 1 to 25 and the fifth topic, namely, stay of execution comprises four rules, namely, Rules 26 to 29. A perusal of these rules will show that the first three rules i.e. Rules 26 to 28 deal with the powers and duties of a court to which a decree has been sent for execution under Rule 26, that court can stay the execution of the decree transferred to it for execution 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 over the former for an order to stay execution or for any other order relating to the decree or execution which might have been made by the court of first instance or the appellate court. It will be seen, therefore, that under Rule 26 the transferee court has a limited power to stay execution before it. Moreover, under sub-rule (2) if any property is seized by it in the course of execution, it may even order the restitution of the property pending the result of the application made by the judgment-debtor to the Court of the first instance or to the appellate court. Rule 27 says that any such restitution made under subrule (2) of Rule 26 will not prevent the property of the judgment-debtor from being retaken in execution of the decree sent for execution. Rule 28 provides that any order of the court by which the decree was passed, in relation to the execution of such decree, shall be binding upon the court to which the decree was sent for execution. And then we have Rule 29, which deals with a different situation. Rule 28 provides that any order of the court by which the decree was passed, in relation to the execution of such decree, shall be binding upon the court to which the decree was sent for execution. And then we have Rule 29, which deals with a different situation. The Rule is as follows: “Where a suit is pending in any court against the holder of a decree of such court, on the part of the person against whom the decree was passed, the court may, on such terms as to security or otherwise, as it thinks fit, stay execution of the decree until the pending suit has been decided.” It is obvious from a mere perusal of the rule that there should be simultaneously two proceedings in one court. One is the proceeding in execution at the instance of the decree-holder against the judgment-debtor and the other a suit at the instance of the judgment-debtor against the decree-holder. That is a condition under which the court in which the suit is pending may stay the execution before it. If that was the only condition, Mr Chagla would be right in his contention, because admittedly there was a proceeding in execution by the decree-holder against the judgment-debtor in the Court of Munsif 1st, Gaya and there was also a suit at the instance of the judgment-debtor against the decreeholder in that court. But there is a snag in that rule. It is not enough that there is a suit pending by the judgment-debtor, it is further necessary that the suit must be against the holder of a decree of such court. The words “such court” are important. “Such court” means in the context of that rule the court in which the suit is pending. In other words, the suit must be one not only pending in that court but also one against the holder of a decree of that court. That appears to be the plain meaning of the rule. 7. It is true that in appropriate cases a court may grant an injunction against a party not to prosecute a proceeding in some other court. But ordinarily courts, unless they exercise appellate or revisional jurisdiction, do not have the power to stop proceedings in other courts by an order directed to such courts. For this specific provisions of law are necessary. But ordinarily courts, unless they exercise appellate or revisional jurisdiction, do not have the power to stop proceedings in other courts by an order directed to such courts. For this specific provisions of law are necessary. Rule 29 clearly shows that the power of the court to stay execution before it flows directly from the fact that the execution is at the instance of the decree-holder whose decree had been passed by that court only. If the decree in execution was not passed by it, it had no jurisdiction to stay the execution. In fact this is emphasised by Rule 26, already referred to. In the case before us the decree sought to be executed was not the decree of Munsif 1st Court, Gaya but the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Gaya passed by him in exercise of his Small Cause Court jurisdiction. It is, therefore, obvious that the Order staying execution passed by the Munsif, Gaya would be incompetent and without jurisdiction.” 18. In Malladi Ravishankar v. Anadaraju Chits Pvt.Ltd, 2006 SCC OnLine AP 870 this Court observed as under in para-3: “3. Section 39 CPC relates to transfer of decree for execution to another Court. Therefore, it is clear that Rule 26 of Order 21 CPC does not apply to cases where the decree is being executed by the same Court which passed the decree. In this case since the Court which passed the decree is the same as the executing Court, question of the executing Court granting stay of execution to enable the revision petitioner obtaining stay from the Court which passed the decree does not arise.” 19. In view of the aforesaid judgments, in the present case, the application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC filed before the Executing Court, which had passed the decree, was not maintainable. 20. So far as next submission is concerned, it is apt to reproduce Order 41 Rule 5 CPC. 21. Order 41 Rule 5 CPC reads as under: “Order 41-Stay of proceedings and of execution Rule-5. 20. So far as next submission is concerned, it is apt to reproduce Order 41 Rule 5 CPC. 21. Order 41 Rule 5 CPC reads as under: “Order 41-Stay of proceedings and of execution Rule-5. Stay by Appellate Court.—(I) An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree. 1 [Explanation.—An order by the Appellate Court for the stay of execution of the decree shall be effective from the date of the communication of such order to the Court of first instance, but an affidavit sworn by the appellant, based on his personal knowledge, stating that an order for the stay of execution of the decree has been made by the Appellate Court shall, pending the receipt from the Appellate Court of the order for the stay of execution or any order to the contrary, be acted upon by the Court of first instance.] (2) Stay by Court which passed the decree.—Where an application is made for stay of execution of an appealable decree before the expiration of the time allowed for appealing therefrom, the Court which passed the decree may on sufficient cause being shown order the execution to be stayed. (3) No order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) unless the Court making it is satisfied— (a) that substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless the order is made; (b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (c) that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him. (4) 1 [Subject to the provision of sub-rule (3),] the Court may make an ex parte order for stay of execution pending the hearing of the application. 2 [(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-rules, where the appellant fails to make the deposit or furnish the security specified in sub-rule (3) of rule 1, the Court shall not make an order staying the execution of the decree.]” 22. 2 [(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-rules, where the appellant fails to make the deposit or furnish the security specified in sub-rule (3) of rule 1, the Court shall not make an order staying the execution of the decree.]” 22. It is evident from the bare reading of the above provision that the power of stay by Court which passed the decree is in those cases, where an application is made for stay of execution of an appealable decree and before the expiration of the time allowed for filing appeal, on sufficient cause being shown. 23. In the present case, the petitioner had filed A.S.No.2 of 2017 and thereafter S.A.No.270 of 2024 along with condonation of delay application. The Execution Petition was filed in the year 2023 and not before expiration of the period of limitation for filing first appeal. Consequently, the said provision Order 41 Rule 5 (2) CPC is not applicable. This provision applies, if execution is filed within the limitation period for filing appeal against the trial court’s decree. This provision confers power in Executing Court to grant temporary stay, to enable the party aggrieved from decree to approach appellate Court within limitation. Once the limitation expires, the Executing Court shall have no power to grant stay under this provision. If the appeal is filed, it is then for the appellant to seek stay from the appellate Court. 24. Order 41 Rule 5 (1) CPC clearly provides that an appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree, but the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree. 25. In Central Bank of India v. State of Gujarat, (1987) 4 SCC 407 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under in para-5 as under: “5. In the absence of an order of stay the decree was executable and the judgment-debtor deposited the decretal dues in the Executing Court. Once the decretal dues had come into the Executing Court there was indeed no justification for the direction to refund the same to the judgment-debtor……” 26. In the absence of an order of stay the decree was executable and the judgment-debtor deposited the decretal dues in the Executing Court. Once the decretal dues had come into the Executing Court there was indeed no justification for the direction to refund the same to the judgment-debtor……” 26. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is only the appellate Court that can consider the stay of execution. The Execution Court has no such power. The application of the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC has rightly been held as not maintainable. 27. Thus considered. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned in this petition. There is no jurisdictional error and no case is made out for interference in the exercise of revision jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. 28. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.