1. It was not disputed that the application moved by the objector in the said suit for a temporary injunction restraining the non-applicants decree-holders from executing the decree for eviction was dismissed. Thus having failed to obtain any injunction, he filed a written intimation before the Executing Court about his intention to resist the execution of the decree. Under these circumstances, the decree-holders moved an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Apparently, during the pendency of the said application, the execution of the decree could not be proceeded. The present applicant then moved an application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming stay of the proceedings under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by contending that since the said proceedings under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure were subsequent to the suit already field by him for declaration of his rights, the same should be stayed till the final disposal of the suit because the subject-matter in issue was substantially the same in both the proceedings. The executing Court rejected the application by observing that the proceedings under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure during the course of execution could not be treated as a suit and, therefore, there was no question of directing stay of the proceedings under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. However, for the purposes of this revision, it would suffice to observe that the executing Court was right in dismissing the application for stay of the proceedings under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as such proceedings could not be treated as a suit. It is true that the word suit may include an appeal and by virtue of section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, certain proceedings, though actually not suits are in the nature of a suit, for instance, proceedings for Probate and Guardianship etc. but there is no scope for applying the provisions of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure during the course of execution. It, therefore, cannot be contended that by virtue of the provisions of section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the provisions of S. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be applied to execution proceedings also. It is now well settled after the decision of the Supreme Court in D. Bhusayya vs. K. Ramakrishnayya, AIR 1962 SC 1886, that section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied to proceedings in execution. AIR 1962 SC 1886 relied on. Revision dismissed.