C.R. No. 1224 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 1224 of 2009 Date of decision: March 5,2009 Mukhtiar Singh and another ..Petitioners Versus Parminder Singh and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. P.K.Garg, Advocate for the Petitioners. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. The present revision petition has been filed by the Judgment debtor challenging the order dated 28.1.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moonak whereby execution application filed by the respondents has been revived. As per the averments made in this revision petition, a decree was passed in Civil Suit No.353 dated 13.9.1983 against the petitioners for eviction in the court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Sunam. Execution application No.36 dated 9.10.1985 was filed by the Decree holder, in which, as per the orders of the District Judge, Sangrur proceedings were stayed and the file was consigned to the record room on 15.4.1987. Appeal of the Judgment Debtor/petitioners was dismissed by the court of District Judge, Sangrur on 3.8.1987. Accordingly, decree holder again filed application No.11-A dated 1.10.1987 before the executing court for taking the possession. During the pendency of the execution application, the original decree holder Melo sold the land under decree to Jagdev Singh son of Kishan Singh father of respondents and accordingly Jagdev Singh filed an application C.R. No. 1224 of 2009 2 for substitution of his name as decree holder which was accepted on 22.11.94 and police help was ordered for getting the possession. Against this order, the petitioners preferred Civil Revision No.680 of 1995 and execution proceedings were stayed during the pendency of the aforesaid Civil Revision in this Court. Civil Revision No.680 of 1995 was dismissed by this court vide order dated 24.5.2006. During the pendency of this revision petition, Jagdev Singh had died and the respondents have been brought on record as his legal representatives. The respondents filed an application dated 16.5.2007 in the executing court for restoration of the execution File No.36 dated 9.10.1985 for taking further necessary action for possession. The said application was contested by the petitioners. The executing Court vide impugned order has restored the execution proceedings vide impugned order dated 28.1.2009. Challenging the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per Article 122 of the Limitation Act, application for restoration of the execution proceedings was required to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of dismissal of the appeal but in the present case, the respondents have filed the present application for restoration of the execution proceedings after more than one year which is highly belated and is not sustainable in law and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention raised by the learned counsel is misconceived. In the present case, Article 122 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. Article 122 of the Limitation Act applies to restoration of a suit or appeal or application for review or revision which has been dismissed for default of appearance or for want of prosecution or for failure to pay cost of service of process or to furnish security for costs. None of such situation arises in this case and in fact the execution petition was consigned to the record room because of pendency of C.R. No. 1224 of 2009 3 appeal/revision, filed by the petitioners in the higher court and therefore,on dismissal of the Civil Revision No.680 of 1995, the application filed by the respondents for revival of the same cannot be equated with a situation as mentioned in Article 122 of the Limitation Act. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. March 5, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE