JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal vide which objection filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor No.2 has been dismissed and warrant of possession has been issued.

2. In the present case, it is not in dispute that respondent No.1/Ishri Prasad @ Ishwari Prasad had filed a suit for possession on the pleadings that he is owner of the land in question measuring 11 kanals 11 marlas. The petitioner is stated to be defendant No.2, who had filed the written statement and had contested the case. It is not in dispute that the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 17.01.2018 was pleased to decree the suit for possession and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment and decree had been dismissed by the 1^st Appellate Court vide judgment dated 08.03.2019. Although the judgment of the trial Court has not been annexed but the judgment of the 1^st Appellate Court dated 08.03.2019 has been annexed. A perusal of the same would show that in the said case, a demarcation report dated 15.11.2005 was duly exhibited as Ex.P3 and in paragraph 18, the 1^st Appellate Court had observed that as per the said demarcation report, the defendants were in illegal possession of the land and the said demarcation has been done after making detailed investigation on the spot and none of the defendants including contesting defendant No.2/petitioner had filed any objection against the said report. The pleas raised on behalf of contesting defendant No.2 were rejected and it was observed that it was amply proved on record that defendants No.1 to 6 were in illegal possession of the suit land and were thus rightly directed by the trial Court to hand over vacant possession of the encroached portion of the suit land and accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court was upheld and the appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed.

3. Respondent No.1 filed execution proceedings and the present petitioner, who is defendant No.2, had filed objections in the same. The said objections have been dismissed vide order dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) by observing that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and as per the decree, the defendants had been directed to hand over the vacant possession and there is no stay of the said execution proceedings and it was further observed that objections filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 were absolutely baseless and accordingly, warrants of possession was issued with directions to the concerned SHO to assist to take possession and the case was adjourned to 06.02.2026. A perusal of the paper-book would show that zimni order dated 06.02.2026 has not been annexed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor has submitted that the petitioner has filed a Regular Second Appeal and in the said case, notice has been issued on the delay application and the case is now fixed for 06.08.2026 and has submitted that till the time the Regular Second Appeal is decided, execution proceeding be stayed. Although, no document has been annexed along with the present petition to show the date of institution of the said Regular Second Appeal or the fact that notice has been issued but a perusal of para 8 of the petition would show that it has been stated that the appeal which has been filed is RSA-3364- 2025. Apparently the judgment of the 1^st Appellate Court dated 08.03.2019 has been sought to be challenged by filing RSA in the year 2025 i.e., after a delay of six years. It has been fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that notice in the delay application only has been issued but till date the delay has not been condoned. At any rate, the power to grant stay of the execution of the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2018 as well as of the judgment of the 1^st Appellate Court dated 08.03.2019 is with the