1. Confusion and complexities have been particularly confounded in the circumstances of this case, as a concise account thereof will disclose. Execution proceedings have been initiated by Deutsche Ranco GmbH against the Respondent, Shri Mohan Murti, who appears before us in person. On the hearing held on 20.3.2007, in EA No.356/2006 in Ex. No.58/1994, it has been minuted that – “Counsel for the decree holder submits that he has instructions to withdraw from the case. He submits that he would be moving an application for seeking discharge. At this request, adjourned to 07/08/2007”. On the next date of hearing, EA No.356/2006 was once again listed for appropriate consideration of the Court. The Order passed on that date reads thus:-

On the last date of hearing i.e. 20/03/2007 counsel for the decree holder had informed the court that he had instructions to withdraw from the case for which he wanted to file the application seeking discharge from the case.

No such application has been filed. Neither the counsel nor the decree holder is present. Hence the execution is dismissed in default.

2. Placed in this predicament, learned counsel for the Decree Holder filed EA No