ORDER

Leave granted.

Though the respondent has been served by dasti, he is not appearing either in person or through counsel. The facts are eloquent. In a suit for ejectment filed on April 5, 1984, the respondent had entered into a compromise on foot of which the decree for eviction was granted after recording the compromise and evidence. The respondent did not deliver the possession of the demised property in terms of the compromise decree. Therefore, the appellant was constrained to lay execution for possession of the property. In the first round of litigation, the respondent had challenged under Section 47 of the C.P.C. impugning the validity of the compromise decree which was turned down by the executing Court. The High Court dismissed W.P. No. 2849 of 1994 by order dated August 19, 1994. Again the respondent laid another objection under Section 47 contending that the decree is vague and incapable of being executed. That was turned down by the executing Court on September 30, 1994. Against that, the respondent filed a revision in the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order allowed the revision by order dated June 21, 1995 in C.R. No. 1252/94 since the counsel for the