S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE State of Gujarat has preferred this Civil Revision Application under section US of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated 26th August, 1991, passed below Exhibit-1 being Regular Darkhast No. 10 of 1990. ( 2 ) IT appears mat respondent plaintiff, the Assistant Teacher instituted Regular Civil suit No. 415 of 1987 in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Porbandar, inter alia contending mat as per Notification of 1977, he has passed the prescribed Departmental Examination, which is fixed for getting promotion to Class-II post and on the date of passing such examination, he was entitled to promotion. He. therefore, inter alia, prayed that his position in the seniority list was not correctly shown and that on the basis of the date of passing the examination, he was entitled to promotion to Class-II Post. Such suit was resisted by the State of Gujarat by filing written statement and by contending that the name of the plaintiff appeared at Serial No. 1513 in seniority list which was published on 2nd of May, 1984 and seniority cum merit was the criteria for promotion to Class-II post. On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed issues at Exhibit-19 and after recording oral as well as documentary evidence, it has by judgment and decree dated 6. 12. 1989 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and declared that the act of the defendant in not granting promotion to Class II post of Education Department (Administrative Branch) is illegal, unconstitutional and void. The defendants were further directed to reconsider the case of the plaintiff afresh and to pass necessary order for promotion with other service benefit which is available to the plaintiff. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed before this Court and the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader Ms. Katha Gajjar, states before the Court that against such judgment and decree of the Civil court, no Appeal is preferred by the State of Gujarat and that has become final. ( 4 ) IT appears that thereafter the respondent plaintiff filed Darkhast proceeding being regular Execution Application No. 10 of 1990 and after issuing notice under Order 21 rule-22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Executing Court proceeded to pass the order. ( 4 ) IT appears that thereafter the respondent plaintiff filed Darkhast proceeding being regular Execution Application No. 10 of 1990 and after issuing notice under Order 21 rule-22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Executing Court proceeded to pass the order. It is required to be noted that within the time granted by the executing court under the provision of Order 21 Rule-22 of the C. P. Code, no objections were filed. The judgment creditor thereupon moved the executing court that despite direction issued by the Court, the defendant has failed to show cause nor did he file any objection and, therefore, appropriate direction should be issued to the defendant. The judgment creditor filed such application at Exhibit-12 to prosecute the executive officers of the State of Gujarat for commiting contempt of court by not carrying out the directions contained in the decree passed by the Civil Court. In such an application, the Court issued show cause notice and the Deputy Director, Higher Secondary Education, was called upon to remain personally present in the court as to why the decree has not been implemented. Once again the defendant filed objection at Exhibit-20 and reiterated the very objection which was taken before the Civil Court in the written statement, based on which issues were framed and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The executing Court by relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Laxmichand Ambaram vs. Tulsidas Madhavdas, reported in AIR 1963, Gujarat, 1, came to the conclusion that once the judgment debtor has failed to appear in response to the notice issued under Order 21 Rule-22 of the C. P. Code and has failed to show cause as to why the decree should not be executed under Rule-23 of the very Order, the Court snail have to proceed to execute the decree. Secondly, the executing court has found that once the finding was reached by the competent Civil Court after recording evidence, the defendant cannot be permitted to reagitate and rc-open the very question which stood concluded by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. Secondly, the executing court has found that once the finding was reached by the competent Civil Court after recording evidence, the defendant cannot be permitted to reagitate and rc-open the very question which stood concluded by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, the executing court passed the impugned order dated 26th August, 1991 and directed that the defendants were not entitled to consider the merits and demerits of the case of the plaintiff for promotion as the plaintiff was held eligible for promotion and his supersession was held to be illegal by the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 415 of 1987. ( 5 ) MS. Katha Gajjar, learned AGP as per the instructions received by her from Senior superintendent Mr. Bharat Upadhyay, who is present in the court, vehemently submitted that in fact the position of the plaintiff in the seniority list was very low and he was not entitled to promotion and, therefore, this Court in its revisional jurisdiction should interfere. In my opinion, such a contention cannot be permitted to be agitated especially when the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 415 of 1987 dated 6th December, 1989 has become final and as stated hereinabove, till date no appeal is preferred against such judgment and decree. Neither the executing court, much less this court, in its revisional jurisdiction can rule upset such decree and can record a finding against the plaintiff. It was open to the State Government (defendant) to prefer appeal against the judgment and decree and if law permits after making appropriate application for condonation of delay, which may be decided on its own merits, the State can take resort to such proceeding. However, in this Civil Revision Application, this court cannot interfere as it does not find any jurisdictional flow in the judgment and order of the Executing Court and, therefore, Civil Revision Application fails. Rule is discharged. Ad interim stay is vacated. No costs. .