ORDER ON BOARD : 1. This Revision has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff/judgment debtor being aggrieved with the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Bastar, Jagdalpur (CG) in Civil Suit No.01/2017, whereby, the application preferred by them raising objection that execution petition was timed barred, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/plaintiff/judgment debtor filed a Civil Suit on 14.04.1987 seeking relief of declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction over the suit property. In the said suit, the non-applicant/defendant/preliminary decree holder filed a written statement and counter claim seeking half share of the suit property. However, the said suit was dismissed and counter claim of the defendant was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the defendant vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.1991 passed in Civil Suit No.27-A/1989 (Annexure-A/5). Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.7-A/1991 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.11.1995 (Annexure-A/6). Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred Second Appeal No.828/1995, however, the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 09.02.2012 (Annexure-A/7). 3. On 31.01.2017 the defendant moved an application under Section 54 of the CPC r/w Order 20 Rule 18 for execution of the judgment and decree dated 18.07.1991, in which, the plaintiff had moved an application under Section 47 of the CPC raising a ground that the execution proceeding is barred by limitation as the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was stayed during the pendency of Appeal, which was well within the knowledge of the defendant/decree holder. It was also stated that execution proceedings were instituted after 25 years 6 months and 13 days. However, by the impugned order, the said objection was rejected. Hence, this revision has been filed for quashing of the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record carefully. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surinder Pal Soni Vs. Sohan Lal, (2020) 15 SCC 771 held that the doctrine of merger applies to a situation when the limitation for filing of an execution application is to be computed. There was a merger of the judgment of the trial Court with the decision which was rendered in appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surinder Pal Soni Vs. Sohan Lal, (2020) 15 SCC 771 held that the doctrine of merger applies to a situation when the limitation for filing of an execution application is to be computed. There was a merger of the judgment of the trial Court with the decision which was rendered in appeal. It was also observed that consequent upon the passing of the decree of an appellate court, the decree of the trial court merges with that of the appellate court. This Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment, which reads thus:- “11. Upon the decision of the Appellate Court, there was a merger of the judgment of the Trial Court with the decision which was rendered in appeal. Consequent upon the passing of the decree of an Appellate Court, the decree of the Trial Court merges with that of the Appellate Court. The doctrine of merger is founded on the rationale that there cannot be more than one operative decree at a given point in time. The doctrine of merger applies irrespective of whether the Appellate Court has affirmed, modified or reversed the decree of the Trial Court. In Kunhayammed v State of Kerala [ (2000) 6 SCC 359 , para 12], while explaining the doctrine of merger, this Court held thus: “12. The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject-matter at a given point of time. When a decree or order passed by an inferior court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a remedy available under the law before a superior forum then, though the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior court has disposed of the lis before it either way — whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior court, tribunal or authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the court, tribunal or the authority below. However, the doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application. However, the doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid shall have to be kept in view.” 12. Further, while explaining the position that emerges on the grant of special leave to appeal by this Court, it was observed: {Kunhayammed (supra), para 41} “41. Once a special leave petition has been granted, the doors for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court have been let open. The order impugned before the Supreme Court becomes an order appealed against. Any order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and would attract the applicability of doctrine of merger. It would not make a difference whether the order is one of reversal or of modification or of dismissal affirming the order appealed against. It would also not make any difference if the order is a speaking or non-speaking one...” 13. This position of law has been recently affirmed and reiterated by a three judge Bench decision of this Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd v Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376 . 14. The decision in Kunhayammed (supra) was followed by a three judge Bench decision of this Court in Chandi Prasad (supra), [Chandi Prasad Vs. Jagdish Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC 724 ] which held thus: “23. The doctrine of merger is based on the principles of propriety in the hierarchy of justice delivery system. The doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation passed by the appellate authority. The said doctrine postulates that there cannot be more than one operative decree governing the same subject matter at a given point of time. 24. It is trite that when an Appellate Court passes a decree, the decree of the trial court merges with the decree of the Appellate Court and even if and subject to any modification that may be made in the appellate decree, the decree of the Appellate Court supersedes the decree of the trial court. In other words, merger of a decree takes place irrespective of the fact as to whether the Appellate Court affirms, modifies or reverses the decree passed by the trial court...” 15. In other words, merger of a decree takes place irrespective of the fact as to whether the Appellate Court affirms, modifies or reverses the decree passed by the trial court...” 15. More recently, the decision in Chandi Prasad (supra) was followed by a two judge Bench of this Court in Shanthi vs. T D Vishwanathan, 2019) 11 SCC 419 rendered on 24 October 2018 in the following terms : “7. ...When an appeal is prescribed under a statute and the appellate forum is invoked and entertained, for all intents and purposes, the suit continues. When a higher forum entertains an appeal and passes an order on merit, the doctrine of merger would apply. The doctrine of merger is based on the principles of the propriety in the hierarchy of the justice delivery system. The doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation passed by the appellate authority. The said doctrine postulates that there cannot be more than one operative decree governing the same subject matter at a given point of time.” 6. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law and considering the averments made the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the doctrine of merger operates as a principle upon a judgment being rendered by the appellate court and it is the decree of the appellate court which has become executable. Hence, the judgment and the decree cannot be defeated and the said execution proceeding cannot be stated to be barred by limitation. 7. Accordingly, this Court does not find any material irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order invoking any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 8. The Revision fails and is hereby dismissed.