Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—List has been revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Though the name of Sri A.T. Kulshrestha who appears for the private respondents is shown in the cause list but he has not appeared even in the revised call. Even no counter-affidavit has been filed despite opportunity given vide order dated 22.5.2013.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

3. The present petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 20th July, 2012 and 29th March, 2013, passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Kairana, district Prabudh Nagar (Shamli) and Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, district Muzaffar Nagar, respectively.

4. The facts of the case as could be elicited from the petition are as follows. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, namely, Khila, instituted suit No. 255 of 1987 for possession against respondent No. 2 and others, who are represented by their heirs and legal representatives. The defendants of that suit instituted suit No. 177 of 1988 for injunction. Both suits were consolidated. Thereafter, suit No. 255 of 1987 was dismissed and suit No. 177 of 1988 was decreed by the trial Court against which two civil appeals, namely, C.A. No. 27 of 2003 and C.A. No. 28 of 2003 were filed. Both appeals were allowed, as a result O.S. No. 255 of 1987 was decreed whereas O.S. No. 177 of 1988 was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27th March, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge Court No. 10, Muzaffarnagar.

5. It appears that against the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, two second appeals were filed before this Court which, according to the petitioner, though are pending as Second Appeal Nos. 440 of 2010 and 441 of 2010, but no interim order staying the effect and operation of the appellate Court decree has been passed.

6. As there was no interim order on the decree passed by the appellate Court, the appellate Court decree was put to execution by filing Execution Case No. 4 of 2010.

7. In the execution proceeding, the judgment-debtor filed an objection claiming that since second appeal against the decree was pending in the High Court, the execution proceeding be stayed.

8. The said objection was countered by the petitioner on the ground that mere pendency of an appeal against a decree is not a sufficient ground to stay the execution proceeding and as there was no interim order passed in the appeal, the execution proceeding should be brought to its logical conclusion.

9. By impugned order dated 20th July, 2012, the execution Court accepted the objection of the judgment-debtor and by placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., (2004) 2 SCC 747, stayed the execution proceeding till decision of the second appeals.

10. Aggrieved by the order dated 20th July, 2012, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 108 of 2012, which has been dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Muzaffar Nagar, vide order dated 29th March, 2013.

11. The petitioner has challenged the orders impugned on the ground that admittedly in the pending second appeals against the appellate Court decree, no interim order has been passed staying the execution of the decree and therefore there was no justification to suspend the execution proceeding keeping in mind the provisions of Order 41 Rule 5 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC). It has further been submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue that when an appeal is pending against the decree, then, even if there is no interim order passed in the appeal, the execution proceeding should be kept in abeyance. The said judgment dealt with an issue as to the date from which the period of limitation for filing of execution of a lower Court decree would be counted where an appeal is preferred and entertained against the lower Court decree a