The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao Civil Revision Petition No.3554 of 2008 Order: The petitioner- Bank, which is the judgment debtor, filed this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’), seeking to assail the correctness of order, dated 30-07-2008, passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, in EP.No.193 of 2006 in O.S.No.591 of 1996. The brief facts of the case are as under: Respondent No.1 herein filed O.S.No.591 of 1996 for declaration and mandatory injunction. Though the said suit was initially dismissed by the trial Court on 10- 04-1997, on appeal being AS.No.98 of 1997 filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff, the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole, vide judgment and decree, dated 18-07-2003, allowed the said appeal and decreed the suit directing specifically the petitioner herein that the original seniority of respondent No.1/decree holder shall be restored and that he must be considered as a first person for promotion, as and when vacancy arises. Respondent No.1/decree holder filed EP.No.193 of 2006 seeking execution of the said decree. Though several contentions were raised by the petitioner herein/judgment debtor to the effect that the Government ordered ban for recruitment and promotion etc., the Court below did not find favour with the same and while rejecting the said contention, ordered execution. Hence, the petitioner/judgment debtor filed this Civil Revision Petition. In this Court, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/judgment debtor admits that no Second Appeal is filed by it as against the judgment and decree, dated 18-07-2003, in AS.No.98 of 1997. He submitted that there is a ban for recruitment and promotion from 2000 and that the said ban was lifted on 11-12-2006 and that the petitioner/judgment debtor executed the decree by giving previous promotion to respondent No.1/plaintiff on 20-11-2000 itself, which is sufficient compliance of the said decree and that there could not be any further execution. However, it is pointed out that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature. These submissions were sought to be repealed by the learned Counsel for the respondents herein. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the entire material available on record, it is quite evident that no Second Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner herein against the judgment and decree, dated 18-07- 2003, in AS.No.98 of 1997, and there is absolutely no explanation by him therefor. Even the objection that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature, is sought to be raised for the first time in the Execution Petition and the same has not been raised before the civil Court. Nothing has been brought before this Court to show that such objection has been raised before the civil Court but the same was not considered. As long as the decree passed by the Civil Court is subsisting, the ban does not hold any water, and, the said decree would bind the judgment debtor until and unless the same is duly set aside in the appeal, if any, filed against it. This Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, cannot adjudicate such an issue. In view of the same, I do not find any merits in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ B.Prakash Rao, J Date: 19-08-2010 lur