THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5396 OF 2010 DATED:20.04.2011 Between: Shiv Shakti Transport and 3 others. .... PETITIONERS And Uttam Chand Kataria. .... RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 19.10.2010, in E.A.No.15 of 2010 in E.P.No.9 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Judge, Adilabad, wherein the said application filed under Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (not under Order XXIX Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure as mentioned in the impugned order), seeking stay of proceedings in E.P.No.9 of 2009 in A.S.M.P.No.1827 of 2009 on the file of this Court, was disposed of granting stay for a period of six weeks. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioners for recovery of the amounts allegedly due. The suit is decreed on 26.09.1994. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners herein filed A.S.No.19 of 1995 before this Court. The said appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution on 23.12.2002. Seven years later, respondent-decree-holder filed E.P.No.9 of 2009. After receiving notices in the Execution Petition, petitioners filed A.S.M.P.No.1827 of 2009 for setting aside the default dismissal order along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is stated that the said applications are pending. While so, petitioners herein filed E.A.No.15 of 2010 before the Execution Court seeking stay of execution pending disposal of A.S.M.P.No.1827 of 2009. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge granted six weeks time to the petitioners to approach this Court and obtain stay orders with a direction that failing which the execution of the decree will be proceeded with. Petitioners may not have any grievance over the impugned order inasmuch as the execution of the decree was virtually stayed for six weeks by the District Court. Petitioners however contend that the learned District Judge ought to have stayed the execution of the decree till disposal of A.S.M.P.No.1827 of 2009. As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the respondent, once the appellate Court is seized of the matter the trial Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction and grant stay. 4. Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Execution Court to stay the execution of the decree only for a reasonable time to enable the judgment- debtor to approach the appellate Court and obtain order of stay of execution or any other order. In the present case, petitioners-judgment-debtors have also filed an appeal and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution and seven years later, they filed applications for restoration of the appeal. Under those circumstances, the question of the Execution Court granting stay under Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure till disposal of A.S.M.P.No.1827 of 2009 as prayed for by the petitioners does not arise. The Execution Court has granted six weeks time to the petitioners to obtain necessary orders from this Court. It is stated that A.S.M.P.No.1827 of 2009 is still pending. Under those circumstances, the impugned order, which already granted a reasonable time of six weeks to the petitioners, does not call for any interference by this Court. It is open to the petitioners to avail the other remedies available under law. 5. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th April, 2011. Tsy