The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order 21 Rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Code (C. P. C.) in the context of simultaneous proceedings in the same court for the execution of a decree and a suit between the same parties.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 19-6-1987 passed by the XIX Additional Small Causes Judge, Court of small Causes, Bangalore City, rejecting I. A. No. lll filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 C. P. C. to stay further proceedings in Execution No. 2146 of 1986 pending decision in o. S. No. 2251 of 1987 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore.

( 2 ) THE Execution Court has rejected the application on the ground that the Order 21 Rule 29 of the C. P. C. is not attracted; that as far as section 151 of the C. P. C. is concerned, it has not stated anything though it has referred to the contention of the petitioner raised under Section 151 C. P. C.

( 3 ) SRI Rama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has putforth two contentions; t) That the provisions of Order 21 Rule 29 of the C. P. C. are attracted as the requirements of those provisions are satisfied, that in the event it is held that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 29 of the C. P. C are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and appropriate to exercise the inherent power under section 151 C. P. C.

( 4 ) EXPANDING the first contention, it is contended that the Court which passed an order of eviction in H. R. C. No. 2462 of 1984 against the petitioner and the second respondent, is none other than Civil Court and the Court in which the suit is filed, is also a Civil Court and the Court in which the execution is filed by the first respondent for execution of the order of eviction passed in H. R. C. No. 2462 of 1984, is also a Civil Court, therefore, the execution case and the suit are pending in the same Court i. e. , Civil Court, hence Order 21 Rule 29 of the C. P. Code are attracted. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the Decisions of this Court in m. M.-MATHEW vs PRAFULCHAND AMRITLAL AND ANOTHER and siddappa vs ASST. COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA AND ANOTHER.

( 5 ) IT is not possible to accept the contention. The scope and effect of Order 21 Rule 29 of the C. P. Code as amended by the Central Act 104/1976, has been considered by this Courtin P. B. SHANTHAPPA vs mehboobi. On taking into consideration the conflicting Decisions of various High Courts on the interpretation of the provisions contained in order 21 Rule 29 C. P. Code before the enactment of Central Act 104/1976 and in the light of the Decision of the Supreme Court in. SHAUKAT HUSSAIN @ ALI AKRAM AND OTHERS vs SMT bhuneshwari DEVI the C. P. C. (Amendment) Act 104 of 1976 effected amendment to the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 29 of the C. P. Code. This Court taking into consideration all these aspects in p. B. Shantappa's case4 has held thus:"5. The provision under the Civil Procedure Code which empowers the Court to stay the execution proceedings is contained in Rule 29 of Order 21 which reads thus: '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. " (Emphasis supplied) the underlined words and the proviso have been inserted by C. P. C. (Amendment) Act 104/1976.

( 6 ) THE learned Civil Judge after referring to a Decision of the supreme Court in Shaukat Hussain @ Ali Akram and others vs Smt. Bhuneswari Devi (Dead by L. Rs. and others) has held that the aforesaid Decisions does not govern Rule 29 of Order 21 of the C. P. C. as it stands after the C. P. C. (Amendment) Act 104/1976. The Supreme court in the aforesaid Decision has held thus:"for the applicability of Order 21