JUDGMENT S. Ali Ahmad, J. The petitioners obtained decree for eviction of the opposite party in T.S. no.29/83. When the decree was to be executed in Execution case no. 17/86, the opposite party filed an appeal against the said decree, which was numbered as title appeal no. 24/86, and obtained an order of stay from the appellate court. The appeal was dismissed on 8.10.90. The petitioners thereafter filed an application in the executing court stating that the appeal has been dismissed and thereafter prayed for execution of the decree. That order was passed and delivery of possession was effected. An application was then filed on behalf of the opposite party stating that the decree of the trial court had merged in the decree of the appellate court and since the appellate court decree had not been prepared, therefore, delivery of possession could not be effected and in case it bas been effected then possession may be restored. By the impugned order this prayer of the opposite party judgment debtor has been allowed. Learned counsel in support of the application contended that the court below is wrong. He said that the court in the case of Sri Chandra Mouli Deva vs. Kumar Binoya Nand Singh and others (AIR 1976 Patna 208) has said that is not necessary for the executing court to have certified copy of the decree for execution. Be, as it may, the position has now been made absolutely clear by incorporating Rule 6A clause (b) to order 20 of the code of Civil procedure. It provides that so long the final decree has not been drawn up, the last paragraph of judgment shall be deemed to be the decree for purpose of execution. It is not said that the appeal was not dismissed. The execution of the decree in the circumstance was correct. The court, below had no jurisdiction to say that if possession had been delivered to the decree holder then the same should be restored. I, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 29.10.90 and allow the revision application. There shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.