G.C.Garg, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court, whereby it stayed the execution of the decree by order dated 8.10.1979 passed under Order 21 Rule 29 of the code of Civil Procedure.

2. The trial Court in an earlier litigation decreed the suit of the defendant-petitioner for possession by way of specific performance. The suit was decreed against Bachan Singh and another, predecessors of the present plaintiffs. The decree became final. The defendant-respondents took out executions, wherein objections were taken by the present plaintiffs. The objections were rejected/They thereafter filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that they are owner to the extent of 1/6th share in land measuring 21 Kanals 7 Marias. They also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By moving this application it was prayed that the execution of the decree passed in the previous suit be stayed till the disposal of the present suit. This application was contested by the defendant-petitioner by contending that the same was not maintainable as the plaintiffs have no locus standi and that the main plea taken by Bachan Singh, predecessor of the plaintiffs, in the earlier suit was the same as . taken by the present plaintiffs. The only effort of the part on the plaintiff is to frustrate the execution of the decree, which has become final in the previous suit.

3. The trial court came to the conclusions that Bachan Singh, predecessor of the plaintiff, was a party to the previous suit and they are his legal heirs, but no issue was framed in the previous suit on the plea taken by Bachan Singh. The trial Court thus allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure and stayed the execution of the decree by only observing that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure are fully applicable to the present set of circumstances.

4. While admitting this revision petition on 9.8.1995, the operation of the order under revision was stayed.

5. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the parties could not tell whether the suit and the execution applications have or have not been finally disposed of.

6. Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where a. Suit is pending in any court against the holder of a decree of such court, the court may on such terms as to security or otherwise, stay the execution of the decree until the pending suit has been decided.

7. On a consideration of the matter and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure have no application to the facts of this case and the learned trial court acted illegally and with material irregularity in staying the execution of the decree passed in the previous suit. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies where the judgment-debtor acquires a superior title to retain the property on account of certain events taking place subsequent to date of decree. It is only in this situation resort can be had to the provisions of this rule. In other words, if the title to the property of possession remains the same, the judgment debtor or his successor cannot resort to this rule merely because a plea was not put forward, which plea was open to him at the time when the decree was passed against him on a earlier occasion. In case, the judgment-debtor oris successor is permitted to seek stay of the decree validly passed in the earlier proceedings, it would enable the judgment-debtor or his successor, to bye pass the provisions relating to res-judicata and protract the execution proceedings for a long time, if not endlessly. This can never be the scope of Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs-respondent in this case are only the successor o