JUDGMENT Mr. S.P. Bangarh, J. (Oral):- The respondents Nos. 1 to 5 instituted civil suit No. 570 of 2000 before the trial Court at Mansa against the petitioner and respondents Nos. 6 to 9, herein, that suit was dismissed but the decree of dismissal was reversed by the first Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 23.04.2004. Appeal filed, there against, is pending in this Court. During the pendency of that appeal, execution application was moved by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5, herein. In that execution application, that has been filed before the Executing Court by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5, the petitioner, herein, filed application for stay of proceedings till the disposal of the Regular Second Appeal pending in this Court. 2. This contention of the petitioner did not find favour with the Executing Court and that application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.07.2013 (Annexure P-4). 3. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner, herein, who is JD No.1, before the Executing Court has filed the present revision petition with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for stay on proceedings in the execution application of the respondents Nos. 1 to 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the latter, is ready to furnish security for due performance of decree before the Executing Court and on furnishing such security, proceedings before it may be stayed till the disposal of regular second appeal pending in this Court. 5. Thoughtful consideration has been given to this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, but there is no merit, therein, as admittedly, this Court had stayed the execution of the decree vide order dated 27.05.2004 on furnishing security. 6. The respondents Nos. 1 to 5, herein, moved application before this Court for vacation of stay, (that was granted vide order dated 27.05.2004), that was vacated vide order dated 17.03.2008. 7. It has been observed by the Executing Court in the impugned order, that from 31.08.2006, the petitioner was granted two months time to furnish security by this Court, but the petitioner failed to comply with this order and due to non-compliance of the order, the stay was vacated. 8. The Executing Court below rightly observed that when the petitioner/JD has not complied with the order of this Court, then he deserves no favour. 8. The Executing Court below rightly observed that when the petitioner/JD has not complied with the order of this Court, then he deserves no favour. Otherwise also, it was required of the petitioner to approach this Court for grant of stay on the execution proceedings and that remedy was availed by him but he could not comply with the condition, that was imposed by this Court for grant of stay. 9. The Executing Court could not sit, as an Appellate Authority over the order of this Court dated 17.03.2008. When once the petitioner had chosen his remedy of getting stay from this Court, then only this Court could review its own order dated 17.03.2008, whereby, stay on the execution proceedings was vacated. The Executing Court, thus, rightly refused to stay the execution proceedings vide impugned order, that must be upheld and affirmed. 10. Resultantly, the instant revision petition fails, and is, hereby, dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------