( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in EP No. 70 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srikakulam. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Principal District Munsif in EA No. 445 of 1996, dated 28-3-1997.

( 2 ) IN this Civil. Revision Petition the issue that has come up for consideration is the consequences that wilt flow from the purchase of an undivided share of one of the decree holders by the judgment debtor.

( 3 ) THE facts of this care are extracted in extenso in Second Appeal No. 468 of 1994. In brief, it is suffice to state that the suit filed by the respondents herein for delivery of vacant possession of the site and recovery of arrears of rents \vas decreed by the trial Court and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court. Though the second appeal preferred by the petitioner herein was admitted but the interim stay granted on 6-10-1994 was vacated on 25-8-1995. In the meantime, the respondents filed EP No. 70 of 1995 and the executing Court ordered delivery of vacant possession of the site. At that stage, the petitioner filed EA No. 445 of 1996 under Order I Rule 10 and Order XXI Rule 16 CPC by contending that he purchased 1/5th undivided share of one of the decree holders under a registered sale-deed dated 25-9-1995 and requested the Court to transpose him as a decree holder by deleting him as judgment debtor. The purport and intentional this purchase can be known from the petition filed in CMP No. 2639 of 1997 in Second Appeal No. 468 of 1994. In that petition, he stated categorically that the decree has become unexecutable and sought for stay of all further proceedings. But this Court having refused the relief on the ground that the events referred by him have taken place subsequent to the filing of the second appeal, gave him liberty to file petition before the executing Court. Thereafter he filed the present petition before the executing Court. The Court below dismissed the application by observing that this application was filed to delay the execution proceedings. Previously the petitioner filed several petitions against the respondents and after dismissing all the applications the Court ordered delivery of possession to the respondents. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present application. The executing Court has also taken into consideration the conduct of the 6th respondent in this Civil Revision Petition i. e. , one of the decree holders who sold this undivided share to the petitioner stating that he has no objection to permit the petitioner to transpose himself as decree holder and the same supports the contention of the other respondents i. e. , respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that the petitioner filed the present application in collusion with respondent No. 6 to defeat and drag on the proceedings of execution.

( 4 ) AS there is no decided case of this Court on this aspect, I appointed Sri C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy as amicus curiae to help the Court in arriving at a just conclusion. Sri C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy brought to my notice a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Khelat Chandra v. Peary Lal, AIR (36) 1949 Cal. 155, wherein S. R. Das, J. , (as he then was) in similar circumstances held that the decree extinguishes pro tanto and that a person having a decree for delivery of possession and who is in occupation of the same is not bound by the decree to relinquish such occupancy and in such an event the other decree holders must proceed against the applicant by way of execution and the only mode of execution as against him is only by delivery of symbolic possession. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Milkhi Ram v. Roghnnandari, AIR 1982 HP 87, which is to the same effect. The next judgment relied on by him is Hasimathunnisa Begum v. Vithal Rao, AIR 1979 AP 273. In that case, His Lordship Justice Narasinga Rao (as he then was) while considering the validity of an order passed by the executing Court