An application was filed by the petitioners in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada to stay the execution of the decree of that Court pending in appeal to the District Court, Kistna. Despite the mandatory provisions of Order 41, rule 6 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the stay was refused. Hence this petition.

A preliminary objection has been taken that no revision petition lies; because the order complained of is an appealable one, it being a decree, since it falls within the mischief of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In the old Code under section 244 “the executing Court was bound to decide all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which a decree was passed . . . relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree or to the stay of execution thereof ...” The words in italics were omitted from the revised provision in the new Code (section 47) ; and it naturally became a matter of contention whether the omission of these words meant that questions relating to the stay of execution of a decree were deliberately excluded by the Legislature from the scope of section 47, or whether the words had been omitted because it was