JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition, is, directed against the verdict recorded by the learned Executing Court, upon, Execution Petition No. 2-10 of 2017, titled as Roop Lal vs. Rattan Singh and another, on 14.11.2017, verdict whereof, is, embodied in Annexure P-6, wherethrough, the learned executing Court, hence, directed the issuance of warrants of possession, vis-a-vis, the suit property. 2. The order directing the issuance of warrants of possession, vis-a-vis, the suit property, is, in pursuance to a conclusive, and, binding judgment and decree rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, , upon, Civil Suit No. 239-1 of 2010, and, upon counter claim No. 592-1 of 2016/11, (I) wherethrough, the respective suit (s) of the plaintiff, for rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, and, in the alternative, hence, for vacant possession of the suit khasra numbers, rather stood decreed, whereas, the defendants' counter claim, was rejected. The afore renditions, apparently, for want of any validly constituted appeals being raised therefrom by the aggrieved defendant, before the learned First Appellate Court concerned, do, obviously acquire conclusivity, and, binding force, (ii) thereupon, the afore renditions were required to be put to coercive realization. In aftermath, the orders impugned before this Court, acquire an aura of validation, and, do not merit any interference from this Court. 3. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/JDs, (a) has contended that, though, the Jds/petitioners hence belatedly assailed, the afore rendered judgment, and, decree, by the learned trial Court, rather before the learned First Appellate Court, and, appended therewith, an application cast under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay in filing the apposite appeal, yet dehors, the afore being subjudice, before the learned First Appellate Court concerned, (b) rather did not preclude, the learned executing court to mete deference thereto, whereas, it omitting to mete any credit thereto, hence, renders the impugned order, to suffer, from, a grave fallibility. The afore submission cannot be accepted, (c) given the learned counsel appearing for the DH/respondent herein, making a valid submission before this Court, that, the aggrieved JDs/petitioners, rearing a time barred appeal, against the afore rendition, before the learned First Appellate Court, and, the application appended therewith, and, cast under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, also yet pending adjudication, (d) and, he further submits, that, till, the afore application constituted, under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is, allowed, and, thereafter the appeal is ordered to be registered, (e) and, whereafter the execution, and, operation, of the impugned renditions therebefore is stayed, hence thereupto rather the impugned verdict, cannot be, interfered by this Court. 4. The afore submission addressed before this Court the learned counsel appearing, for the respondent/DH, has immense merit, and, is required to be accepted, (I) as, until the time barred appeal reared against the conclusive and binding rendition, rendered by the learned trial Court, is, after an affirmative decision standing recorded, upon, an application appended therewith, and, cast under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is accepted, or set aside, (ii) and, or during, the pendency of the afore rather validly constituted, and, registered civil appeal, the learned First appellate Court, upon, an application cast therebefore, under, the provisions of Order 41, Rule 56 of the CPC, hence, stays the operation and, execution of the impugned rendition, (iii) rather thereupto the conclusive and biding rendition, recorded by the learned trial Court rather enjoins, meteing, of, credit thereto, by the learned executing Court. However, since, the afore appeal remains, not, validly constituted nor registered nor any stay stands granted by the learned First Appellate Court, against, the operation, and, execution of the afore binding, and, conclusive judgment, and, decree, thereupon, hence, the order impugned before this Court is not required to be interfered with. 5. Be that as it may, the further submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved Jds/petitioners, is, that (i) given the occurrence of a settlement inter se the contesting litigants, and, as borne in Annexure P-5, (ii) thereupon, credit is to be meted thereto. 5. Be that as it may, the further submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved Jds/petitioners, is, that (i) given the occurrence of a settlement inter se the contesting litigants, and, as borne in Annexure P-5, (ii) thereupon, credit is to be meted thereto. However, the afore submission is again rudderless, as, the executing court, upon, meteing credence, if any, vis-a-vis, Annexure P-5, and, as may have been placed therebefore, would rather proceed to infract the trite canons, rather enjoined to be meted obedience, (iii) cannon (s) whereof, is embodied in the factum qua the learned executing Court being barred, to go behind the decree put before it, for its coercive execution, (iv) and, it being also concomitantly estopped, to, modify or reverse the judgment and decree, put before it, for its coercive execution, (v) whereas, upon the learned Executing Court, even without the operation, and, execution of the judgement and decree, remaining stayed, by the learned First Appellate Court, nor the judgment, and, decree rendered by the learned trial Court, being either reversed or set aside, (vi) rather omitting to hence put the binding, and, conclusive judgment and decree to coercive enforcement, and, execution, hence, would infract, the afore requisite canon (s), (vii) and, thereupon in its not meteing any deference, to Annexure P-5, purportedly comprising a settlement occurring inter se the contesting litigants, it has rather not transgressed, the domain of its jurisdiction, (viii) whereas, reiteratedly, upon its meteing deference thereto, hence, it would definitely proceed to untenably modify or reverse the judgment, and, decree (s) put before it, for its coercive execution. Resultantly, the instant petition, is, a gross abuse, of, the process of court, and, is liable to dismissed. 6. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the present petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the order impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.