Arun Kumar Jha, J.—The record has been taken up on mentioning being made on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and I intend to dispose of the instant petition at the stage of admission itself.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Munsif, Patna City in Execution Case No.08 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned executing court dismissed the petition dated 02.08.2023 filed by the petitioners under Order 21, Rule 29 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned executing court has not considered the observation made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment dated 11.08.2017 passed in Second Appeal No.325 of 2000 wherein it has been observed that ‘none of the findings recorded in this suit for eviction, at any stage, shall prejudice the case or claim of either of the parties over the suit property in a suit for possession over the suit property on the basis of title before competent court in accordance with law’. The learned counsel further relied on two decisions of the Bombay High Court, first in the case of Super Max International Pvt. Ltd and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2009 (2) Mh.L.J 134 and second in the case of Narsidas Nathubhai Vohra vs. Manharsingh Agarsing Thakor reported in AIR 1931 Bombay 247, to stress the point that power of grant of stay is discretionary and the learned executing court should have exercised the discretion in favour of the petitioners since the title suit of the petitioners is pending and if without disposal of the title suit, the petitioners are dispossessed in the execution case, they would be unduly prejudiced and would suffer irreparable harm.

5. Having perused the record and considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not need any interference for the reason that the learned executing court has discussed all the contentions and rejected the same with a reasoned and speaking order. There could be no stay of the proceeding under Order 21, Rule 29 of the Code in the present situation since the proceedings of title suit and execution are pending before two different courts.

6. Now, Order 21, Rule 29 of the Code reads as under:—

“29. 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”.

7. It clearly shows two proceedings should be pending before the same court. This is condition precedent under which the court in which suit is pending may stay the execution or pass orders regarding stay till the disposal of the pending suit.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaukat Hussain @ Alim Akram vs. Bhuneshwari Devi (dead) by L.Rs. reported in (1972) 2 SCC 731 held in paragraph 6 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 j