The petitioner (Judgment Debtor No. 12 in Execution Petition No. 110 of 2013 arising from OS No. 100 of 1985) filed a Civil Revision Petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 18.07.2025 by which the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gudivada dismissed her application (EA No. 75 of 2025) seeking stay of execution proceedings pending the outcome of OS No. 4 of 2020 filed by her to set aside the 1991 decree. The petitioner claimed she was not a party to the original suit and had constructed a house on the disputed property in 1986, while the decree holder contended that the petitioner's mother and grandmother were parties to the original suit and that the petitioner had repeatedly filed applications to delay execution. The High Court examined the requirements of Order XXI Rule 29 CPC, which permits stay of execution only when a suit is pending in the 'same court' and noted that the grant of stay is discretionary (the provision uses the word 'may'). The judgment text as provided ends mid-analysis while the court was examining the Supreme Court's interpretation of the phrase 'such court' in Order XXI Rule 29 CPC, and a final decision on the revision petition is not yet stated in the extracted text.