CR No.5665 of 2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5665 of 2000 Date of Decision: 7 - 8 - 2009 Bhura ....Petitioner v. Chellu Ram ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Manohar Lall, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jasbeer Singh, Advocate for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) Chellu Ram had filed a suit for possession in respect of vacant land, details of which have been given in head note of the plaint. His suit was decreed. Petitioner had filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Against the Appellate Court order, the petitioner filed a revision petition in this Court. This Court had set aside the order of Appellate Court and remanded the matter to the Appellate Court. Petitioner failed to pursue the appeal and his appeal was dismissed in default. To give effect to the decree, passed in favour of the plaintiff – decree-holder, he filed execution proceedings. In execution proceedings, CR No.5665 of 2000 [2] petitioner took a stand that since appeal was not entertained being time barred, therefore, decree of the trial Court had merged into the order of Appellate Court upholding the findings of the trial Court. Counsel for the petitioner submit that once appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed being time barred, therefore, decree of the trial Court had merged into the decree of the Appellate Court and that was set aside when the matter was remanded back. This argument raised cannot be accepted as there is fallacy in the same. Trial Court decree still subsists. The order of the Appellate Court was set aside. The decree passed by the trial Court has not been set aside. The Executing Court while dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner had passed the following order:- “.....By perusing the orders mentioned above I found no where stay of the judgment and decree dated 27.3.1989, meaning thereby the judgment and decree dated 27.3.1989 is final and binding upon the parties and its execution was also valid in accordance with law. It is pertinent to mention here that objector did not disclosed the fact regarding the restoration application which was dismissed by the Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narnaul on dated 17.9.1996 and also not disclosed this fact that appeal against order dated 17.9.1996 had also been dismissed by the Hon'ble High court. Hence, the objections raised by the applicant is hereby dismissed as no order to costs.” There is no infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 7, 2009. JUDGE RC