ORDER : This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Execution Court in E.P.No.79/2005 in O.S.No.169/1995, dated 07.11.2008, for delivery of possession and recording the same as per Order 21 Rule 22 and Rule 35 CPC. 2. In the said Execution petition, the fifth defendant, who is the revision petitioner herein has filed a counter stating that he is the auction purchaser and is entitled for share in the property and therefore the suit O.S.No.169 of 1995 has been filed in collusion and the same is not sustainable. 3. The Trial Court has accepted the said plea and dismissed the suit, the same was reversed in the Appellate Court. Alleging that the decree has been obtained without proper description of the property and in a collusive manner, so he has preferred second appeal and the same is pending. The revision petitioner has contested the execution petition stating that till the disposal of the second appeal, the execution petition should not be proceeded with. 4. The Execution Court has not considered the said request, since it has been found that the alleged second appeal preferred by the revision petitioner herein was not numbered and the representation petition C.M.P.No.726 of 2003 in S.A.No.SR3440 of 2002 was dismissed for non- prosecution on 21.02.2003. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Execution Court, the present revision petition is filed on the ground that effective steps are being taken by the revision petitioner to get the papers back and to restore the same on file. It is stated that due to establishment of Madurai bench, the second appeal papers presented before the Principal Bench, could not be placed at Chennai or at Madurai. Hence, fresh application C.M.P.No.SR103717 of 2005 is filed to set aside the order of dismissal dated 21.02.2003, in C.M.P.No.726 of 2003 and the same is pending before the Principal Court. 6. Without waiting for the outcome of the second appeal, the Execution Court ought not have ordered delivery of possession. No doubt, in the reversing judgment, an opportunity for the party, who has lost the case should be given and the legality of the judgment will be tested in the second appeal, provided if there is any substantial question of law involved in it. 7. No doubt, in the reversing judgment, an opportunity for the party, who has lost the case should be given and the legality of the judgment will be tested in the second appeal, provided if there is any substantial question of law involved in it. 7. Unfortunately, in this case, for nearly 14 years, there is no attempt on the part of the revision petitioner to re-construct the bundle or to bring back the lost papers pertaining to second appeal. For perpetuity, Execution Petition cannot be kept pending, Therefore, this Court finds no error or illegality in the order passed by the Execution Court rejecting the plea of the revision petitioner, who is the 5th respondent in Execution petition and the 5th defendant in the suit. 8. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.