JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the impugned order dated 22.4.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sikar, in Execution Case No. 2 of 1985 whereby the executing Court rejected the review petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.2.1995 passed by the said court. 2. The facts, briefly stated are that decreeing the petitioner's suit No. 18 of 1978 for recovery of As. 12,205.15, the execution proceedings were initiated by the petitioner on 23.8.1980. The Bank took necessary steps to get the land of the judgment debtor auctioned in pursuance of the aforesaid decree and also to realise the decretal amount for satisfaction of the decree but unfortunately the same could not materialise. 3. The execution proceedings were contested by some individuals which included the legal representatives of one Shri Mula, who filed objections before the executing court and also filed an application under Order XXI Rule 69 CPC and sought stoppage of the sale in execution proceedings. On 26.5.1994 the executing court passed an order that the land of the judgment debtor will only remain subject to attachment and the bank will be free to get the said land auctioned while the remaining land belonging to the objectors, was released from attachment. 4. The aforesaid objections unfortunately remained pending for adjudication before the executing court for a long spell of about four years and as a result, no effective steps was taken for execution of the decree. 5. On 21.1.1995 the executing court directed to put the land in dispute for auction on 8.2.1995 and fixed the case for 14.2.1995. In the meanwhile the Ameen, who was appointed by the court to get the. decree executed, submitted his report to the, executing court that since no bidder came forward at the time of auction, the auction could not be materialised. On 14.2.1995 another order was passed by the executing court whereby instead of verifying the facts and by summoning the parties/judgment debtors, who were creating obstruction to the execution of the decree, the trial court merely relied upon the report of Ameen and consigned the file to the record room. As a result, the decree remained unsatisfied and unexecuted. On 15.3.1995 a review petition was filed by the Bank before the executing court which was rejected. As a result, the decree remained unsatisfied and unexecuted. On 15.3.1995 a review petition was filed by the Bank before the executing court which was rejected. During the course of hearing it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decree in question is a money decree and non-execution of the decree has resulted in substantial loss of revenue to the petitioner Bank as it is a public money and its realisation is an absolute necessity. A perusal of the documents placed on the record as well as the record of the trial court, which was summoned by this Court, reveals that there were no justifiable reason for the executing court to have consigned the file to the record room by not taking substantial and effective steps for getting the aforesaid decree executed which was lawfully passed and which remained unchallenged and uncontroverted by the respondents/objectors. 6. I am of the considered opinion that since the execution proceedings were initiated by the petitioner-decree holder within the statutory period of 12 years, as envisaged by Article 136 of the Limitation Act, no fault can be found with the said proceedings and there should be no difficulty in reviving the said proceedings. 7. I find force in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sikar dated 22.4.1995 in Execution Case No. 2 of 1985, is quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to restore the execution proceedings and take effective steps for realisation of the decretal amount, which is due to the petitioner Bank, in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the executing court on 9.7.1996 and the trial court shall expeditiously decide the same, in accordance with law.Revision Allowed. *******