ORDER Viney Mittal, J. - Dasti summons were issued for the service of respondent No. 1. The aforesaid summons have been received back with the report that although the summons have been received by respondent No. 1 but he has refused to affix his signatures/thumb impressions. 2. Accordingly, it is apparent that respondent No. 1 has been duly served. He is proceeded against ex parte. 3. In view of the law laid down in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society Nagpur v. M/s. Swaraj Development and others, JT 2003(4) SC 255 the revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable. 4. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel submits that the present revision petition be treated as petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The prayer made by the learned counsel is allowed. 5. The decree holder-petitioners have approached this Court impugning the order dated January 5, 2002 passed by the learned executing Court whereby their request to get the sale deed executed in a suit for specific performance has been declined. 6. A suit for specific performance was filed by the present petitioners. The same was decreed by the learned trial Court on February 22, 1999. The matter was taken up in appeal. The appeal was also dismissed by the learned first appellate court. Still further the matter was taken up in regular second appeal. The aforesaid regular second appeal is still pending. In the aforesaid regular second appeal the parties have been directed to maintain status quo regarding possession. 7. When the present execution application was pending before the learned executing Court, the judgment debtor-respondents raised an objection that in view of the order of status quo passed by the High Court, the sale decree could not have been executed. 8. The aforesaid objection raised by the judgment debtor-respondents found favour with the learned executing Court. 9. It is apparent from the narration of the facts noticed above that although the decree for specific performance which was passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned first appellate Court is under challenge before this Court but in the aforesaid appeal parties have been merely directed to maintain status quo qua possession. There is no stay with regard to the execution of the decree under appeal. 10. There is no stay with regard to the execution of the decree under appeal. 10. I have heard Shri Mahavir Sandhu, the learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 11. In this view of the matter, when this Court in the regular second appeal had thought it proper, not to stay the execution of the decree under appeal, then the learned executing Court was absolutely wrong in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction to get the sale deed executed in favour of the decree holder-petitioners. 12. It may be relevant to notice here that despite service upon respondent No. 1, he has chosen not to appear. Accordingly, he has been proceeded against exparte. 13. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition is allowed and the order dated January 5, 2002 is set aside the learned executing Court is directed to proceed with the execution and get the sale deed executed in favour of the decree holder-petitioners in accordance with law. Revision allowed.