Stay of execution of decree under.

1. Decree-holder in O.S.No.77 of 1983, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, is the revision petitioner.

2. Petitioner herein obtained a decree in the above suit on 27. 1989. In the suit filed by the petitioner, it wanted relief in respect of various items. Item No.1 related to the ownership of Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TN.T.9744. In respect of that car, the petitioner herein was declared as the owner, and the respondent herein was directed to surrender possession of the same. Against that portion of the decree which went against the petitioner, the matter is pending in appeal before this Court. Challenging the ownership of the vehicle as declared by the Trial Court, respondent has not filed any appeal.

3. Respondent herein filed another suit as O.S. No.106 of 1987, on the basis of an alleged agreement dated 38. 1982. That suit was one for recovery of a sum of nearly Rs.2,25,000. A decree was granted to the respondent herein on 2. 1991. Against that decree, petitioner herein has filed an appeal before this Court, and the same is pending.

4. Petitioner herein thereafter filed E.P.No.46 of 1991, for recovery of the motor vehicle, for which a declaration was given to it.

5. A counter was filed by respondent, stating that since he has filed a suit as O.S.No. 106 of 1987, the decree-holder is not entitled to execute the decree. Along with the counter, he also filed E.A.No.105 of 1991, seeking relief from the executing court to stay the execution of the decree in O.S.No.77 of 1983 under Order 21, Rule 29, C.P.C. A Counter was filed by the decree- holder.

6. By the impugned Order, the Court below stayed further proceedings in execution. It is against that Order, the present Revision Petition is filed.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the executing court exceeded its jurisdiction in staying the execution of the decree. According to him, petitioner herein has obtained a decree and the same is not challenged in any Court, and even the provisions of Order 21, Rule 29, C.P.C. have not been complied with in this case. It was further submitted that execution of a validly obtained decree is not to be stayed for improper reasons.

8. As against the said contention, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that while instituting the suit as O.S.No.106 of 1987, the value of the car was also taken into account. According to him, there was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent on 38. 1982. As per that agreement, the petitioner herein was bound to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,1058. P. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.27,1058. P. was paid towards the value of the car and, therefore, the car belonged to him, and the same is not liable to be seized in execution of the decree. He further said that in the suit O.S.No.107 of 1987 he claimed only the balance amount, and when that suit was decreed, execution could not be proceeded with, and further, the petitioner herein has also filed an appeal challenging the decree and it is, therefore, contended that the provisions of Order 21, Rule 29, C.P.C. are fully complied with.

9. I have heard learned counsel on both sides.

10. The point for consideration is, whether any ground has been made to stay the execution of the decree under Order 21, Rule 29, C.P.C.

11. Order 21, Rule 29, C.P.C. reads thus:-

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. As early as in the decision reported in Kannammal v. Muthukumaraswami Chetty, A.I.R. 1936 Mad. 102 the scope of Order 21, Rule 29, C.P.C. was considered, and Beas