The doctrine of merger dictates that an appellate decree supersedes the trial court's order, becoming the sole operative document from which the period for enforcement commences, regardless of whether the appellate court affirmed, modified, or reversed the original judgment.

JUDGMENT :

BIPIN GUPTA, J.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.02.2026 (Annexure-11), passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in CMA No. 05/2026, whereby the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s prayer for stay of the execution proceedings during pending appeal.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that, on 06.04.1979, the plaintiff–respondent No. 1, Yadvendra Singh, along with other plaintiffs, instituted a suit for eviction, mesne profits, and damages. In the said proceedings, the original defendant was Shri Narayan Singh. After his demise, his wife, Smt. Ucchal Singh, along with four of his sons, were impleaded as parties. Smt. Ucchal Singh also expired during pending suit; consequently, the decree was passed against the remaining sons, who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The suit was decreed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide judgment dated 21.03.2001.

2.1 Aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.03.2001, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 21.07.2010, modified the decree to the extent that, since plaintiff No. 2 had expired, the decree was to be passed in favour of plaintiff No. 4, namely Yadvendra Singh (who was respondent No. 4 in the appeal). It was specifically directed that the appellants– defendants shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the property, as described in Paragraph No. 2 of the plaint, to the said plaintiff, and shall also pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month from 01.09.1976 till the date of handing over possession. The learned First Appellate Court further directed that the decree be prepared accordingly, which was done on21.07.2010.

2.2 The original defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court, preferred a second appeal before this Court, being S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 383/2010. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 31.05.2024, dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Thereafter, the original defendants approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, being SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 42899/2024, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.12.2024.

2.3 Pursuant to the decree dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the decree-holder, Yadvendra Singh, filed an execution application on 27.05.2022. In the said proceedings, the present petitioner, Smt. Ramkanwar, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 99 read with Section 151 CPC, claiming herself to be the daughter of the original tenant, Shri Narayan Singh. It was contended that, being a legal heir and having rights in the tenanted premises, the decree could not be executed against her without impleading her as a party. It was further alleged that her brothers (respondent Nos. 2 to 5) were acting in collusion and intended to sell the property. It was also submitted that the petitioner had filed a separate suit on07.09.2022 for partition and permanent injunction. Accordingly, it was prayed that her application be allowed and the execution petition be dismissed.

2.4 Thereafter, in compliance of the order dated 18.11.2025, the petitioner file