The main legal point established is that the doctrine of merger applies to decrees, and the limitation period for execution starts from the date of the decree of the lower appellate Court, as interpreted in the ChandiPrasad case.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 15th December, 2010 (Annexure-F) passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parali Vaijinath, below Exhibit115 in Regular Darkhast No. 55 of 2004 and order dated 15th December, 2010 (Annexure H) passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parali Vaijinath, below Exhibit1 in Regular Darkhast No. 44 of 2004 thereby dismissing the Execution Petition on the point of limitation. It is further prayed that, Regular Darkhast No. 55 of 2004 may be restored to its original position.

The petitioner herein, is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 271 of 1976.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff herein, that, on 15th December, 1973 father of petitioner namely Nagnathappa s/o Tatyaappa Halge had allotted property worth Rs. 2,00,000/to his son Prabhuappa Halge out of his self acquired property but the aforesaid Nagnathappa had enjoyed the possession over the suit plot. It is further case of the petitioner that, on 25th December, 1973 Prabhuappa Halge and one Kamalbai w/o Govindlal Goud had taken illegal possession of the above said plot. It is further case of the petitioner that, on 17th September, 1976 the father of the petitioner namely Nagnathappa had filed Regular Civil Suit NO. 271 of 1976 in the Civil Court at Ambejogai against Prabhuappa Halge and Kamalbai w/o Govindlal Gound for recovery of possession of suit plot. In the above said suit, Prabhuappa Halge had raised a defence against his father Nagnathappa that, in view of compromise in Regular Civil Suit No. 218 of 1965, the suit was not maintainable and the principles of 'estoppel' and 'resjudicata' are applicable.

It is further case of the petitioner that, on 9th April, 1984 after considering oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambejogai vide its judgment and order decreed the aforesaid suit with costs directing that, the present petitioner ( plaintiff's L.R.1/4 PW1) be put in possession of suit plot by dispossessing Prabhuappa and Kamalbai Goud. It is further case of the petitioner that, on 20th June, 1984 against the aforesaid judgment and decree, only Kamalbai w/o Govindlal Goud had filed Regular Civil Appeal in the District Court, Beed alongwith Civil Misc. Application No. 137 of 1984 for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the said appeal. On 6th June, 1988 the learned Additional District Judge, Beed vide its order below Exhibit1 in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Application No. 137 of 1984 condoned the delay in filing the appeal on payment of cost. As such, Regular Civil Appeal came to be registered bearing No.181 of 1988 and subsequently came to be transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge at Ambejogai.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that, on 23rd January, 2002 after hearing both the sides, the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Ambejogai vide its judgment and order dismissed the said appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and decree therein, subject to payment of deficit court fees by the L.Rs. of the deceased plaintiff/respondent therein. It is further case of the petitioner that, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court, the present respondents/L.Rs. of deceased Kamalbai Goud filed Second Appeal No. 1446 of 2004 before this Court. On 20th December, 2004 the petitioner/decree holder filed application for execution of decree bearing Regular Darkhast No. 55 of 2004 in the Civil Court at Parali Vaijinath. It is further case of the petitioner that, on 16th July, 2005 in view of the aforesaid directions, the petitioner/decree holder deposited deficit court fees of Rs.332/before the lower Court vide Application (Exhibit25) in Regular Darkhast No. 55 of 2004.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that, on 16th August, 2005 after hearing both the sides, the High Court su