V.K. Jhanji, J. - (1.) Suit for possession of land measuring 94 Kanals 3 Marlas was decreed in favour of the petitioner by Sub Judge, First Class, Zira and appeal against the judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur on 14.5.1980. Regular Second Appeal No. 1475 of 1980 was filed in this Court. On an application filed by the applicants, their dispossession was stayed. Subsequently, an application was filed by the petitioners for vacating the interim order passed by this Court. On 16.8.1983, this Court modified that order and ordered that execution of decree shall remain stayed provided applicants furnished security within 6 weeks from the date of order failing which stay order was to stand automatically vacated. In pursuance of order passed by this Court, applicants filed an application for furnishing security to the satisfaction of Executing Court. On the said application, notice was issued to counsel for the decree -holder for 2.9.1983. Subsequently, on 29.9.1983 Additional Senior Sub Judge directed the appellants to furnish security bond in the sum of Rs.90,000/ -. Security bond was furnished and accepted by the Additional Senior Sub Judge on 29.9.1983. Counsel for the decree -holders was present on the date of security bond was accepted by the Court but no objection whatsoever was taken by him. It is only on 27.2.1996 i.e. after 13 years of acceptance and attestation of the security bond that application was filed by the decree -holder stating that the security bond should have been accepted within six weeks from 16.8.1983 and that having not been done, the stay order granted by this Court automatically stood vacated.
(2.) Notice of the application was given to the applicants. In reply, they have stated that such an objection cannot be taken at such belated stage and that too when counsel for the decree -holders had not raised any objections in this regard. Trial Court after hearing the appellants and decree -holders held that the application of decree -holders for review of the order does not lie after 13 years of the passing of order. Hence this Civil revision.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the view that though there was a lapse on the part of judgment -debtors not to have furnished security bond within the time allowed but considering that no objection in this regard was taken by counsel for the decree -holders at the time when the same was accepted and attested by the Court and application agitating the same came to be filed after 13 years. I am of the view that trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application. Consequently, no case for interference in this civil revision is made out. Dismissed.;