H. G. RAMESH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is by the judgment-debtors. By the impugned order, the executing Court has dismissed LA. No. 3 filed by the petitioners/judgment-debtors (tenants) to dismiss the execution petition in Execution case No. 1227 of 2002. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri G. S. Visveshwara, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri P. D. Surana, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the impugned order of the executing Court. ( 3 ) THE execution petition was filed pursuant to the eviction decree passed in HRC No. 99 of 1994 which was affirmed in HRRP No. 169 of 1998 by granting time till 31-12-2002 to vacate the premises. The petitioners/judgment-debtors filed the aforesaid application-I. A. No. 3 on the ground that the eviction decree had become unexecutable in view of the fresh lease deed dated 1-1-2003 granting lease for a period of one year from 1-1-2003. On a consideration of the matter, the executing court has dismissed the said application by the order impugned herein. ( 4 ) IT is relevant to state that the execution petition was resisted by the petitioners/tenants on the ground of a fresh lease between the parties. The alleged fresh lease, in my opinion would amount to adjustment or satisfaction of the eviction decree. Accordingly, as provided in Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the application for recording of such adjustment/satisfaction should have been made within thirty days from 1-1-2003 i. e. , the date of the alleged fresh lease deed. Admittedly no such application was filed within time. ( 5 ) SRI G. S. Visveshwara, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the provisions of Order 21, Rule 2 of the CPC and Article 125 of the limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. I am unable to accept his submission in view of the decisions of the Apex court in Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain, AIR 1997 SC 1006 : (1997)1 SCC 373 and Lakshmi Narayanan v. S. S. Pandian, AIR 2000 SC 2757 : (2000)7 SCC 240 a perusal of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court would show that a fresh lease would amount to adjustment or satisfaction of the eviction decree. Hence, it requires to be recorded in the manner provided under Order 21, Rule 2 of the CPC and the application for such recording should be filed within the time allowed under Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is not in dispute that the present application-I. A. No. 3 was not filed within the time allowed by law. Hence, the executing Court was barred under Order 21, Rule 2 (3) of the CPC from recognising the alleged adjustment/satisfaction of the decree. Accordingly, I do not see any error in the order passed by the executing Court dismissing LA. No. 3. In the result, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. At this stage, Sri G. S. Visveshwara, learned Senior Counsel prays for stay of this order to approach the Apex Court. As the question raised is covered by the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, I decline to grant stay of this order. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .