JUDGMENT : Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. This petition has been filed seeking review of order no. 85 dated 07.03.2025 passed in First Appeal No. 43 of 2012 wherein the petitioner was respondent no. 21 namely Asharfi Hospital Limited. The learned counsel submits that at the relevant point of time, the Asharfi Hospital Limited was respondent no. 23 in the first appeal. 2. The learned counsel submits that this petition has been filed in view of undertaking given by the original plaintiffs (contesting respondents in the First Appeal) who stated that they did not wish to proceed against Asharfi Hospital Limited in the execution case to the extent it relates to transfer of property of 11.92 acres vide lease deed. The learned counsel submits that the property comprising 11.92 acres was in relation to Plot No. 603,604 and 584 and has also submitted that this property should be deleted from the adjudication of the First appeal so that no lis in connection with the property is ultimately decided in the pending First Appeal. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta appearing for the plaintiff, has opposed the prayer. He has submitted that the undertaking was that the plaintiffs would not proceed in the execution against Asharfi Hospital Limited in the execution case arising out of judgment and decree in the trial of the suit which is impugned in the First appeal to the extent of transfer of aforesaid property of 11.92 acres. He submits that entire undertaking in paragraph 12 to 15 of the affidavit dated 06.03.2025 has been recorded in the order under review. He has also submitted that the petitioner herein is fighting a separate suit in connection with the said property which is pending in which State is also a party. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs of the suit which is subject matter of First Appeal No. 43 of 2012, this court finds that as recorded in the order under review itself, the plaintiffs, who are respondents in the First Appeal, only undertook not to proceed in the execution case and the petitioner herein had filed an interlocutory application in the First Appeal seeking remand to the learned Trial Court as they were never made party before the learned Trial Court. The fact remains that final hearing in the First Appeal has already concluded and the judgment is reserved. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no ground for review of the order dated 07.03.2025 has been made out. The present petitioner is no longer a party in the First Appeal No. 43 of 2012 and the First Appeal will be decided on merit based on the materials on record and will certainly bind the parties to the first appeal as per law. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. 6. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.