Judgment Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The only crucial question which invites the attention of this Court is the execution of alleged Will dated 30.12.1995, which was said to have been executed by the judgment debtor Irfan in favour of Ashraf, who is none other but the son of the plaintiff Musharraf @ Mustafa. It may be all the more significant that the questioned will was disbelieved by the Court vide its order dated 16.3.1998, but still Ashraf was substituted in place of the original judgment debtor by way of an ex parte order dated 3.4.1998. However, Meser Jahan, a minor represented by her next friend claiming herself to be the real heir of Irfan –judgment debtor, was also substituted by the Executing Court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roorkee on 14.9.2012 and despite the pendency of First Appeal no.361 of 1986 before the Allahabad High Court, filed against the judgment passed on 13.5.1986 in the original suit, the execution was being proceeded in the Court of Civil Judge, Roorkee. It will not be out of place to mention that since the decree in the original suit was passed in the Court at Roorkee (outlying Court of District Saharanpur at that time), so, the appeal was preferred before the Allahabad High Court but the same (for any reason whatsoever) could not be made over to the Uttarakhand High Court, albeit several efforts being made by the First Appellate Court in this direction by way of writing letter to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court. Perhaps, all those letters could not evoke the attention of the relevant authorities in the Registry of Allahabad High Court. The argument of learned Senior Counsel of the decree holder is that although Mr. Ashraf was substituted in place of original debtor by way of an ex parte order dated 3.4.1998, but the same was never challenged by Meser Jahan or her associates. So, the said order has now become final. I am unable to agree from this contention put forth by learned Senior counsel, more so, for the reason that Meser Jahan for many a reasons might not have noticed soon regarding the substitution of Mr. So, the said order has now become final. I am unable to agree from this contention put forth by learned Senior counsel, more so, for the reason that Meser Jahan for many a reasons might not have noticed soon regarding the substitution of Mr. Ashraf (real son of plaintiff-decree holder) in place of defendant/judgment debtor Irfan and a reflection to that effect can be gathered from the order dated 14.9.2012 i.e. almost 4½ years from the order dated 3.4.1998 (Supra) when Meser Jahan could be accepted as the judgment debtor no.1/2 in the ongoing execution proceedings. In the backdrop of above facts, the application was moved by Meser Jahan along with her associates for dismissal of execution. But the same was rejected by way of the impugned order dated 18.10.2013 passed by the Civil Judge/Executing Court and this dismissal was confirmed in the Revision No.154 of 2013 on 26.7.2014 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Roorkee. This Court feels that the Execution No.2 of 1994 cannot be proceeded at all during pendency of the first appeal and both the Courts below have grossly erred in rejecting the application of Meser Jahan and her associates by way of passing the impugned orders dated 18.10.2013 and 26.7.2014. So, the effect and operation of both the impugned orders, hereinabove, shall remain stayed till the decision of the First Appeal pending before the High Court of Allahabad, or by the High Court of Uttarakhand after receiving the said appeal on transfer. With the result, the ongoing proceedings of Execution No.2 of 1994 shall remain stayed till further orders of this Court. (Stay application no.9796 of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly) Petition is, accordingly, admitted for hearing. Counter affidavit, if any, may be filed within six weeks. List thereafter.