ORDER : S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J. This petition by the Judgment Debtor in Ex.Pt.No.75/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC was rejected by the trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent/decree holder instituted aforesaid execution proceedings against the petitioner/Judgment Debtor, who entered appearance in the said execution proceedings and filed the instant application seeking stay of the order of attachment of the salary of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor, till disposal of Miscellaneous No.21/2022 pending before the trial Court. The said application having been opposed by the respondent/decree holder, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner by holding as under: "That the counsel for the JDR filed application and prays to stay the order passed by this court for attachment of salary of the JDR in the interest of justice and equity. 2. It has been stated by the JDR that he has appeared in OS.No.3/2017 which was filed by the DHR. The said suit decreed Exparte. For execution of the judgment and Decree passed in OS No.3/2017 the present suit is filed. JDR has received the notice regarding attachment of his salary which is passed by this court in this Execution petition. He is working as a Teacher in Manvi Taluk of Raichur District, as such he could not able to get the information regarding passing of decree in OS no.3/2017 and filing of this petition. It is stated that he intended to challenge the Judgment and decree passed in OS No.3/2017 by filing Mis.petition, as such prays to stay the order passed for to attach his salary in this petition. It is stated that if this IA is allowed no harm or injustice is going to be caused to the DHR. Further stated that if the IA is rejected it is going to cause irreparable loss and injury to the JDR. Hence prays to stay the order passed for attachment of salary of JDR till the disposal of the Mis. Petition. 3. Further stated that if the IA is rejected it is going to cause irreparable loss and injury to the JDR. Hence prays to stay the order passed for attachment of salary of JDR till the disposal of the Mis. Petition. 3. Per contra, counsel for the DHr filed objections to the IA and contended that IA filed by the JDR is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is contended that on 23.12.2013 JDR has obtained loan of Rs.2.00,000/- from the DHR and has not repaid the same. Hence DHR has preferred a case in OS No.3/2017 against the JDR which came to be decreed on 01.04.2019. Later DHR filed this petition for execution of the Judgment and decree passed in OS No.3/2017. Since from the date of Judgment and decree, eventhough JDR is working as a teacher has not repaid any amount to satisfy the decreetal amount. Now he came up with this application after the lapse of 12 years and prays to stay the order passed for attachment of salary which is devoid of merits. By contending all these grounds counsel for the DHR prays to dismiss the IA with cost. 4. Perused the IA., Affidavit filed in support of the IA and the objections. Below mentioned points arisen for my consideration. POINTS 1) Whether the JDr made out grounds to consider the IA and grant the relief as sought for? 2) What order? 5. Heard counsel for both parties. Perused the materials available on record. My findings to the above points is as here under. Point No. 1: In the Negative. Point No.2: As per the final order for the following. REASONS 06. Point No.1: this petition is filed by the DHr against the JDr for execution of the decree passed in OS No.3/2017. JDr appeared and filed the objections. 7. Counsel for the JDr argued that the JDR has preferred Mis. Petition No.21/2022 for restoration of OS No.3/2017, as such there is a need to stay the order of attachment of salary of JDR passed by this court in this execution petition till the disposal of the Mis. Petition, otherwise it will cause hardship and injustice to the JDR. Hence prays to allow the IA. 8. Per-contra counsel for the DHr argued that application filed by the JDr is not maintainable either in law or on facts. JDR has not filed any Mis. Petition, otherwise it will cause hardship and injustice to the JDR. Hence prays to allow the IA. 8. Per-contra counsel for the DHr argued that application filed by the JDr is not maintainable either in law or on facts. JDR has not filed any Mis. Petition by questioning Judgment and decree passed in 0S No.3/2017. It has been argued that the Hon'ble Court has passed the Judgment and Decree in OS No.3/2017 and the same has not been stayed by the appellate court. Further argued that since the defendant has not obeyed the judgment and decree passed by this court as such the present execution petition came to be filed before this court. In this case notice has been issued and but the JDR has not appeared inspite of service of notice. DHR has filed the IA seeking for attachment of the salary of the accused by invoking the provisions under order 21 Rule 48 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC. Salary particulars of the JDR received by this court. At this stage JDR appeared before this court with his advocate and filed the objection as well the present application with an intention to protract the proceedings and the application filed by the JDr is belated one. 9. Heard counsel for both parties. Perused the IA and the objections filed by the parties. On perusal of all the materials on hand, it is an admitted fact that this Court has passed Judgment and decree in OS No.3/2017 and the same is not challenged by the JDr by filing an Regular appeal before the competent Court. It is also an admitted fact that JDr has filed Mis.Petition against the Dhr in MIS.No.21/2022 for the restoration of OS No.3/2017. 10. At this relevant point of time it is relevant to peruse what Order 21 Rule 26 of Code of Civil Procedure speaks about. The same is extracted below. It is also an admitted fact that JDr has filed Mis.Petition against the Dhr in MIS.No.21/2022 for the restoration of OS No.3/2017. 10. At this relevant point of time it is relevant to peruse what Order 21 Rule 26 of Code of Civil Procedure speaks about. The same is extracted below. "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. 1. Where the property or person of the judgment- debtor has been seized under an execution of 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. 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." 11. At this relevant point of time it is relevant to peruse what Order 21 Rule 29 of Code of Civil Procedure speaks about. The same is extracted below. "Stay of execution pending suit between decree-holder and judgment-debtor:- "Where a suit is pending in any Court against the holder of a decree of such court (or of a decree which is being executed by 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.". (Provided that if the decree is one for payment of money, the Court shall, if it grants stay without requiring security, record its reasons for so doing) 12. (Provided that if the decree is one for payment of money, the Court shall, if it grants stay without requiring security, record its reasons for so doing) 12. On perusal of Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC, it reflects that this Court can stay the operation and execution of the proceedings if sufficient cause has been shown, to enable the JDr to apply to the Court by which the decree is 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. 13. On perusal of Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC it reflects, where a suit is pending in any court against the holder of a decree of such court or of a decree which is being executed by a such court, on the part of a person against the whom decree was passed, the court may, on such terms as to security or other wise, as it thinks fit, stay execution of the decree until the pending suit has been decided. 14. On perusal of the recitals of the application filed by the JDr and the grounds made therein, JDr has not been made any grounds as contemplated in the Order 21 Rule 26 of PC or Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC to stay the proceedings of this execution petition and also has not filed any appeal before the appellate Court for to stay the proceedings of this petition or the JDR has not filed any suit against the DHR which is pending for consideration before this court or in any other court. Further this court has not passed any orders to attach the salary of the JDR as contended by the JDR in his application. On perusal of the order sheet of Mis.21/2022, it reflects that the JDR has filed a Mis petition for restoration of OS No.3/2017 against the DHR in which notice is not yet served against the DHR and also stay order has not been passed with respect to stay the proceedings of this case. On perusal of the order sheet of Mis.21/2022, it reflects that the JDR has filed a Mis petition for restoration of OS No.3/2017 against the DHR in which notice is not yet served against the DHR and also stay order has not been passed with respect to stay the proceedings of this case. Mere filing of Mis petition for restoration of OS No.3/2017 is not a ground to stay the proceedings of this case. The reason assigned in the application filed by the JDr is not enough to consider to stay the proceedings of this petition. Thus, I proceed to answer Point No. 1 in the Negative. 15. POINT NO.4: As discussed above in point No. 1, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER IA filed by the Applicant/JDr under Order 21 Rule 29 R/W/Section 151 of CPC is dismissed with cost of Rs.100/-." 4. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and re-consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to suffered from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam and Ors. vs.Chhabi Nathand Ors (2015) 5 SCC 423 K.P.Natarajan and Ors. vs. Muthaiammai and Ors AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali v. V.Jaya (2022)10 SCC 477 . 5. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. Liberty is however reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such other remedies as available in law. 6. Subject to the aforesaid directions and liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of. The trial Court before whom is Miscellaneous No.21/2022 is pending is directed to dispose of the said Miscellaneous Petition as expeditiously as possible.