JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner preferred this writ petition before this Court on 26.10.2002 with following prayer: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition and call for the entire record pertaining to the case and after examining the same be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 10.2.1994(Annexure-1) passed in Civil Appeal No. 19/91 and also order dated 3.2.1996 & 15.3.1996(Annexure-2) passed in execution application. Any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be passed in favour of the petitioner." 3. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.02.1994(Annexure-1), Regular First Appeal No. 19/91 filed by the plaintiff-respondent Krishan Kumar Gupta was allowed by first appellate court, i.e. Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 4, Jaipur City and judgment and decree dated 11.03.1991 passed by trial court i.e. Munsif, Jaipur City(East), Jaipur, dismissing plaintiff's suit, was set aside and plaintiff's suit for specific performance was decreed in his favour. 4. Vide impugned order dated 03.02.1996(Annexure-2), the executing court dismissed the objection petition filed by the judgment-debtor/petitioner and the case was kept for further proceedings on 15.03.1996.Vide order dated 15.03.1996, trial court passed an order for sending the judgment-debtors to civil jail. 5. It appears from the record that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance, which was initially dismissed by trial court vide judgment dated 11.03.1991.Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff, which was allowed by first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.1994.Thereafter, defendant/petitioner did not file any second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. and judgment and decree of first appellate court dated 10.02.1994 became final. 6. Thereafter, plaintiff/decree holder-respondent filed execution petition before executing court for execution of decree passed in his favour wherein judgment debtor/petitioner filed objection petition under Section 47 C.P.C., but the same was dismissed by executing court vide order dated 03.02.1996.Being aggrieved with the same, the judgment debtor/petitioner filed S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 595/1996 before this Court under Section 115 C.P.C. on 03.04.1996.When revision petition was called for hearing on 23.01.2002, no one was present on behalf of the petitioner to prosecute the revision petition, therefore, this Court dismissed the same in default vide order dated 23.01.2002.Thereafter, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Restoration Application NO. 831/2002(Defect).This Court after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length dismissed the restoration application vide order dated 30.05.2002.Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred Petition for Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No. 16493/2002 before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 02.09.2002.The petitioner thereafter preferred the present writ petition before this Court on 26.10.2002. 7. From the above facts, it is clear that judgment of first appellate court decreeing the plaintiff's suit has attained finality.However, judgment of first appellate court has been challenged in the present writ petition, instead of filing civil second appeal against that order.Similarly, executing court dismissed objection petition of the petitioner under Section 47 C.P.C. and the said order was upheld by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter, orders passed by executing court dated 03.02.1996 and 15.03.1996 have been challenged in this writ petition. 8. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that revision petition as well as Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner both were not decided on merits, therefore, impugned orders passed by court below are liable to be set aside by this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that impugned judgment(Annexure-1) was appealable under Section 100 C.P.C. by way of second appeal, but the same was not preferred by the petitioner.Another impugned order dated 03.02.1996 was challenged in revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. before this Court, but the same was dismissed.Thereafter Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, no interference in the same is required by this Court. 10. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined impugned judgment and orders(Annexures- 1 & 2), passed by first appellate court as well as executing court, which are under challenge in this writ petition. 11. Plaintiff's suit was initially dismissed on 11.03.1991, but it was decreed by first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.1994, which is under challenge in this writ petition.Said judgment cannot be allowed to be challenged for the reason that it was appealable by way of second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., therefore, present writ petition is not maintainable against impugned decree dated 10.02.1994.Secondly, present writ petition has been filed on 26.10.2002 i.e. after a delay of more than 8 years and the same is liable to be dismissed being highly belated. 12. 12. So far as impugned orders dated 03.02.1996 and 15.03.1996(Annexure-2) are concerned, it is relevant to mention that order dated 03.02.1996 was challenged by the petitioner in Revision Petition No. 959/1996, which was dismissed in default by this Court.Thereafter, restoration application was filed, which was also dismissed by detailed order dated 30.05.2002.Thereafter Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 02.09.2002.In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge order dated 03.02.1996 in the present writ petition. 13. So far as another order dated 15.03.1996, passed by executing court, is concerned, present writ petition was preferred on 26.10.2002, i.e. after a delay of more than 8 years, therefore, writ petition against that order is highly belated.Apart from above, it is relevant to mention that order dated 15.03.1996 has rightly been passed by executing court in pursuance of decree passed by first appellate court, which has attained finality. 14. In view of above discussions, the writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable, highly belated and on merits also.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******