JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - The learned counsel for the appellants herein/plaintiff, submits, that despite his making repeated insistence(s) upon the appellant/defendant, for his depositing, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem, adjudged towards mense profits from 29.2.2009 upto November, 2017, in the Registry of this Court, his insistence(s) remaining unacceded. Since only upon the aforesaid direction(s) being complied with by the appellant, would constrain this Court to extend the longevity of the order pronounced on 5.1.2016, whereby the execution of the judgment and decree, assailed hereat by the appellant came to be stayed. however, visible non-compliance by the defendant with the aforesaid condition precedent, for, the order recorded by this Court on 5.1.2016, whereby, this Court temporarily stayed the execution of the decree impugned before this Court, hence remaining alive, till a decision is made upon the extant RSA rather constrains this Court, to vacate the apposite order recorded on 5.1.2016. The learned trial Court is directed to ensure prompt execution of the judgment and decree pronounced vis-a-vis defendant/JD. The mesne profits assessed by this Court under orders recorded on 5.1.2016, shall however not be put to coercive execution. 2. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents herein/decree holders, submits, that this Court direct the learned Executing Court to ensure coercive recovery of Rs. 3,000/- adjudged as per mesne profits, from 29.2.2008 till date. He submits that the aforesaid amount, has, become a part of decree, hence the learned Executing Court, is enjoined to ensure coercive recovery thereof, from the defendant/appellant herein or from his estate. However, the aforesaid submission, cannot, at this stage be accepted by this Court, as quantification of pecuniary sum(s) of mesne profits, was, only a condition precedent for the order made by the Court, on 5.1.2016, temporarily, staying the execution of the impugned judgment and decree, hence remaining alive upto the decision made upon the extant RSA. Also since the aforesaid amount obviously, does not, become a part of the decree, assailed hereat by the plaintiffs/respondents herein, hence the aforesaid sum(s) of money, cannot, be directed to be put to coercive execution. 3. The learned counsel for the decree holders, has also contended that for want of the aforesaid deposits being made by the Judgment Debtor, thereupon this Court can validly dismiss the extant Appeal for non prosecution. 3. The learned counsel for the decree holders, has also contended that for want of the aforesaid deposits being made by the Judgment Debtor, thereupon this Court can validly dismiss the extant Appeal for non prosecution. However the aforesaid argument is also not acceptable, as deposits, of the aforesaid sums of money, was, only a condition precedent, for, the order made by this Court on 5.1.2016 continuing to hold binding force, till a decision is made upon the extant RSA. Also since the performance of the aforesaid act, is, not peremptorily necessary for ensuring the further progress of the instant Appeal rather non-compliance thereof, has, sequelled the apt legal consequence, of the apposite order made by this Court, temporarily, staying the execution of the impugned hereat judgment and decree being recalled besides vacated also thereupon the aforesaid submission is rendered to hence founder. The relevant provisions of Order 14 Rule 3 CPC stands extracted hereinafter:- "Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence, etc. Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such default- (a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith; or (b) if the parties are, or any of them is absent, proceed under rule 2." Hence, it would not be expedient or just to either construe the liquidation(s) by the defendants, of, the aforesaid sums defendants being imperatively necessary, for, ensuring the further progress of the extant Appeal nor it would be just to order that hence for want of apposite deposit(s) by the defendant, the instant RSA warranting, its, being dismissed for non prosecution. Moreover, the aforesaid quantification, was merely, an ad-interim measure also non-compliance therewith has begotten the aforestated befitting legal mishap to befall the defendant. Moreover, the aforesaid quantification, was merely, an ad-interim measure also non-compliance therewith has begotten the aforestated befitting legal mishap to befall the defendant. Being so, given the may be possibility of the JD succeeding in the extant Appeal, thereupon it would not be legally sagacious, to, at this stage, merely, for want of its deposit, by the appellant, make a conclusion that the instant Appeal warrants dismissal, especially when the aforesaid amounts, do not, constitute a part of the decree impugned before this Court also rather when validity(s) of apposite levyings, is to be yet determined by this Court, determination whereof would occur only upon a verdict on merits being here-after pronounced upon the extant RSA. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders, re-submits, that further necessary proceedings being undertaken vis-a-vis the JD, for ensuring coercive recovery of the aforesaid sums, determined as mesne profits. However, the aforesaid submission would hold validity, only upon the instant JD Appeal being dismissed, on merits, whereas rather with the appellant may be succeeding in the extant Appeal, thereupon if during pendency of the instant Appeal, the DH affirmatively proceeds to constrain this Court, for, adoption of coercive measures, for ensuring recovery of sums aforesaid, thereupon, it, would result in avoidable restitutory measures warranting adoption, for hence ensuring qua the aforesaid sums of money being realized from the plaintiffs, exercise whereof would tantamount to obviable multiplicity of proceedings being unjustly launched. Accordingly the instant application is dismissed. List for hearing on 29th November, 2017.