( 1 ) THIS is a revision against an order by which the Executing Court has kept in abeyance an order passed by it earlier. By the earlier order in E. A. 98/2000 in E. P. 27/2000 in O. S. 220/91, the Court had directed ;"11-2-2000petition is allowed. S. I. of Police of Chintalapudi shall give necessary police aid for implementing the Civil Court decree passed on O. S. No. 220/91 dated 30-10-99 by the Prl. Sub-Court, Eluru. "thereafter, it appears that the judgment-debtor moved an application on which an order was passed on 14-2-2000 as under;"14-2-2000call on 15-2-2000 for counter. Till such time police aid is kept in abeyance subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not cut and remove the coconuts and turmeric. "this order is now challenged in this revision petition.

( 2 ) BEFORE the controversy is resolved certain facts are needed to be gone into. In a suit for injunction a decree was passed by the trial Court in the following terms:"in the result, the suit is decreed in part with proportionate costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint. A-schedule land not withstanding the sale deed dated 19-12-1991 detained by the 3rd defendant from the 2nd defendant relating to the same and granting the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and representatives from interfering into his possession and enjoyments over the same. The plaintiff is also granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and representatives from interfering into his right of passage through "ef" and "ij" passage shown in the plain filed along with the plaint. As far as the suit filed by the plaintiff for granting mandatory injunction is concerned, the same is dismissed without costs. "thereafter an appeal has been filed which is pending. In between also there was a revision filed being C. R. P. No. 1158/2000 which was decided by this Court on 28-4-2000. The stay granted by the appellate Court had been vacated by this Court while deciding the revision for reasons mentioned in that order. It appears that, after the stay was vacated by this Court the petitioners moved an execution petition before the executing Court with a prayer that the judgment-debtor should be sent to civil prison unless he obeys the decree of the Court. In this execution petition notice was issued to the judgment-debtor and he has contested the matter, but when an interim application E. A. No. 98/2000 was filed, the order granting police aid was passed in ex parte. Thereafter, when the application was moved by the other side, the order was kept in abeyance by the impugned order.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, once an order was passed it could not have been kept in abeyance and an irreparable loss would be caused to the decree-holder. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent pleads that the revision itself is not maintainable in view of the mandate of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. He submits that, while the consideration of the application of petitioner is yet to be made by the Executing Court an order passed in ex parte in his favour was kept in abeyance. The impugned order is not an order which could be termed as case decided . Secondly, it is contended that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order which it passed on 11/02/2000.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. I agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that passing of an order in the context in which it had been passed and by which the earlier order has been kept in abeyance does not decide any issue between the parties and hence it would not amount to a case decided , therefore, the revision was not competent. The Executing Court has merely postponed the consideration of the issue so that it hears both the parties and decides the matter. The second co