R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) ON facts found by consolidation authorities which are not challenged by petitioner the controversy that arises for consideration is whether decree obtained in suit under Section 202 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act I of 1951 stood executed by filing of application so as to prevent accrual of Sirdari rights under Section 204 of the Act. In earlier suit under Section 12 of U.P. Agriculturist Relief Act which attained finality in appeal opposite parties were held to be mortgagees but petitioners were directed to seek their remedy in revenue Court. Consequently they filed suit under Section 202 which was decreed on 4 -5 -1957. On 23 -6 -1957 the decree was executed and possession was obtained. But unfortunately for petitioners this order was recalled on 30 -6 -1967 and possession was restored to opposite parties as the execution of decree had already been stayed by appellate Court and on 17 -6 -1957 the trial Court on receipt of stay order had itself directed that execution shall remain stayed. In other words the execution of decree on 23 -6 -1957 being under misapprehension the order was recalled and parties were restored to status quo ante. In 1959 the appeal was dismissed. But after dismissal of appeal the decree does not appear to have been executed afresh. When consolidation was enforced and notification under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued opposite parties filed an objection under Section 9 claiming to be adhivasi and in alternative sirdar under Section 204 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act 1 of 1951. Consolidation officer rejected the objection but it was allowed in appeal and the order was affirmed in revision. The Deputy Director found that after restoration of possession to opposite parties on 30 -6 -1957 the execution file was directed to be consigned on 10 -9 -1957. And as after dismissal of appeal the petitioners did not apply for execution the opposite parties acquired rights of sirdar under Section 204. Section 204 of Z.A. and L.R. Act provides that if a decree has not been obtained or if it has been obtained but has not been executed within period of limitation then the Asami acquires rights of sirdar. From facts narrated above this much stands proved that a decree for possession was obtained. Controversy is very narrow whether this decree was executed so as to prevent accrual of sirdari right under Section 204. This depends as to what meaning should be given to the word 'executed.' According to dictionary, meaning of 'execution' is 'to carry' 'to perform.' In other words the decree passed in favour of petitioner should have been carried out or enforced before it could be held that it was executed. Carry out of a decree for possession of agricultural land naturally means its exhaustion by obtaining possession, symbolical or otherwise. The only period during which the decree was executed was between 4th May, 1957 and 23rd June, 1957. But it was contrary to law. The decree was executed under mistake of fact. It is well settled that an act of Court or authority does not act prejudicially to any of the parties. Moreover, the order had been recalled and on 30 -6 -1957 possession was restored to opposite parties. In effect the decree dated 4 -5 -1957 remained as it was. It was not carried out nor it could be deemed to have been carried out by obtaining possession on 23.6.1957. Once the order was recalled whatever effect it had in law, came to an end.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner argued that the effect of restoring possession to opposite parties did not result in obliteration of the application for execution. And, when the appeal was dismissed it automatically revived and the deputy director committed manifest error of law in observing that petitioners should have filed fresh application. The argument appears to suffer from inherent fallacy. Assuming that, despite orders of trial Court consigning the execution filed as a result of recall of order dated 23.9.1957, the application for execution could not be deemed to have been exhausted and petitioners were not required to file fresh application for execution after dismissal of appeal the inaction of petitioners by not taking steps to obtain possession cannot be understood. Rights are lost if the rightful owner fails to obtain possession within time. After dismissal of appeal opposite party continued in possession till consolidation was enforced. Their possession was contrary to law. By inaction and lapse of time petitioner lost his rights. In any case the orders cannot be said to be erroneous at the face of it. In the result this petition fails and is dismissed with costs.;