JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - The Plaintiffs filed T.S. No. 118 of 1962 in the Court of the Munsif, Berhampur. This was dismissed on 11-11-1963. Title Appeal No. 77 of 1964 against that decree was allowed on 14-10-1965. The operative portion of the decree of the lower appellate Court runs thus: The Defendants 1 to 9 are restrained from interfering with Plaintiff's possession of 'A' schedule lands. Against the appellate decree the Defendants filed Second Appeal No. 567 of 1965 which is still pending. In the meantime the Plaintiffs filed an execution of the decree for permanent injunction which was numbered as M.J.C. No. 200 of 1966 in the suit, but was subsequently renumbered as E.P. No. 14 of 1967. The Defendants filed an application for stay in the Second Appeal and obtained an interim order of stay. The interim stay was finally vacated on 20-3-1967. It runs thus: 'In these circumstances, I think there is no justification for staying the proceedings in M.J.C. 200/66 as prayed for on behalf of the Appellants. Accordingly the rule made by this Court on 23-12-1966 is discharged and it is directed that M.J.C. 200/66 will proceed in future. On 11-4-1968 the learned Munsif passed an order that the Plaintiff's application for execution' was not maintainable and he accordingly dismissed it. Against this order the Civil Revision has been filed. 2. Two questions arise for consideration in this Civil Revision (1) Whether a Civil Revision lies, and (2) Whether the order of the learned Munsif is correct. 3. Apparently the order of the learned Munsif is incorrect. Order 41, Rule 5 CPC lays down in clearest terms that an appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court may fur sufficient case order stay of execution of such decree. The learned Munsif got himself completely confused by elaborate discussion of authorities and ignored this elementary statutory provision. Had be merely committed an error of law, his conduct might have been excusable. The learned Munsif got himself completely confused by elaborate discussion of authorities and ignored this elementary statutory provision. Had be merely committed an error of law, his conduct might have been excusable. But the impugned order flies in the face of the positive order passed by the Court in Second Appeal No. 567 of 1965 on 20-3-1967 whereby it was said that the execution case was to proceed. The decree was for permanent injunction. Stay was not granted by the High Court. The decree was executable proprio vigore, and the prayer of the decree-holders for arrest of the judgment-debtors under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC could in no circumstances be resisted unless there was absence of the necessary conditions mentioned therein. The learned Munsif therefore exercised jurisdiction illegally in refusing to allow the execution to proceed merely on the ground that a Second Appeal was pending. I would therefore clarify the position by saying that the execution case was maintainable and the prayer for arrest of the judgment-debtors under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC lies and could be either allowed or dismissed only after consideration of necessary facts. The execution case cannot be thrown out on the ground that it was not maintainable. 4. The next question for consideration is whether an appeal lies against the impugned order. To me this point appears to be elementary. The decree-holders applied for execution by arrest of the judgment-debtors. Rightly or wrongly the learned Munsif refused this prayer saying that it was not maintainable SO long as the Second Appeal was pending and dismissed the execution case. As between the parties the matters in controversy were thus finally disposed of 80 far as that Court was concerned. This order cannot be treated as interlocutory in any view of the matter. It relates to execution of the decree, and the final order was that the decree was not executable as the Second Appeal was pending. Doubtless the order of the learned Munsif was wholly misconceived, but that misconception does not in any way affect the nature of the decision made which concluded finally the rights of the parties so far that Court was concerned. The decision comes within the purview of Section 47 which amounts to a decree and an appeal lies against the impugned order. The Civil Revision is therefore not maintainable. 5. The decision comes within the purview of Section 47 which amounts to a decree and an appeal lies against the impugned order. The Civil Revision is therefore not maintainable. 5. In view of my observation that an appeal lies and no revision lies, I do not want to express any view on the merits of the case whether warrant of arrest should have been issued against the judgment-debtors. Mr. Ramdas states that an appeal is pending before the District Judge and that question must necessarily be decided by him in appeal. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. The Misc. Appeal pending before the District Judge be disposed of within one month from today with intimation to this Court. Send back the records of the case at once. Final Result : Dismissed