A court has the jurisdiction to stay execution of a decree even if the decree has been partially satisfied, if the decree holder is still entitled to seek actual possession of part of the land.

, J.

1. This petition for revision of the order dated the 2nd of June, 1973, passed by Shri V. K. Jain, Additional District Judge, Karnal, has arisen thus,. Murti Shri Krishan Maharaj (the respondent before me and hereinafter referred to as the idol) filed a suit against the three petitioners for possession of 75 Kanals 16 Marlas of land situated in village Bani, Tehsil Thanesar, District Karnal. The suit was decreed on the 12th of February, 1973. The idol took out execution of the decree and a warrant for the delivery of the land was issued by the Executing Court on the 15th of February, 1973. The warrant was executed on the 17th of February, 1973, when physical possession of an area measuring 10 Kanals 7 Marlas out of the disputed land was delivered to the idol. The rest of the area was under crop and symbolical possession thereof was delivered to the idol on the same day.

2. On the 20th of February, 1973, the petitioners applied to the Executing Court for stay of execution. The order passed by the Executing Court on the application was:

"In the above noted case, a warrant for delivery of possession of the suit land was issued on 15-2-1973. Please send a report on the said warrant. If the said warrant has not been executed, the same be returned immediately unexecuted."

3. Against the decree passed by the trial Court the petitioners filed an appeal with the District Judge at Karnal on the 27th of March, 1973, and on the same date presented to him an application praying that their possession be not disturbed till the decision of the appeal. Notice of the application was given to the idol with an order that till the disposal thereof the petitioners would not be dispossessed from the land in dispute.

4. On the 21st of April, 1973, the idol applied to the learned District Judge for vacation of the order protecting the possession of the petitioners. The matter came up for decision before Shri V. K. Jain, Additional District Judge, Karnal, to whom the appeal had been transferred by the learned District Judge in the meantime. The learned Additional District Judge held that the decree had already been executed and the petitioners had been dispossessed from the land in dispute so that there was no question of any stay of execution being granted to them. He was further of the opinion that the petitioners were guilty of concealment of facts from the learned District Judge inasmuch as they did not disclose to him that the Executing Court had also made an order staying execution. For both these reasons the learned Additional District Judge vacated the order passed earlier by the learned District Judge to the effect that the possession of the petitioners was not to be disturbed. It is against the order of the learned Additional District Judge which is dated the 2nd of June, 1973, that the petitioners have come up in revision to this Court.

5. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Aggarwal and the same is based on Rule 7 contained in Part (a) of Chapter I-A of Volume V of the Rules and Orders of this Court. That rule runs thus:

"7. Every such petition shall be stamped as required by law and shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree or order in respect of which such application is made and by a copy of the judgment upon which such decree is founded. In the case of petitions for revision of the decree or order of an Appellate ourt, a copy of the judgment or order of the Court of the first instance shall also be filed."

6. No copy of any judgment or order of the trial Court has been filed with the petition which, according to Mr. Aggarwal, is incompetent by reason of the provisions of the second paragraph of the rule. On a careful consideration of the same however, I as unable to agree with him. The second paragraph of the rule, in my opinion, applies only to those cases in which revision is sought of a decree or order which has been passed in appeal from a decree or order of a Lower Court. The two paragraphs of the rule a