( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is by the decree-holders, whose execution case was rejected by the Executing Court. On 26-02-1988, after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I had allowed the petition and directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution. On the said date, even though the respondent had been served with the notice of the C. R. P. he was not present and he was not represented by any Counsel. Thereafter, I. As. I to III were filed by the respondent, seeking the said order to be recalled and other incidental reliefs. The reason for his absence and non-representation at the time of the said disposal of the C. R. P. is fully explained by the respondent. Sri H. G. Ramesh, the learned Counsel for the decree holder, fairly did not oppose the said I. As. Consequently, my order dated 26-02-1988 is recalled. The learned Counsel for both parties were ready for arguments on merits of the C. R. P. and they were fully heard.

( 2 ) A few facts are necessary to be stated. Decree-holder filed a suit seeking a decree against the defendants "for permanent injunction restraining them from trespassing into the suit schedule sites and putting any s