( 1 ) THIS Revision Application raises an interesting question as to how far the principle of constructive res judicata applies in execution proceedings. Opponent No. 1 obtained a decree against the applicant on 14 April 1955 for a sum of Rs. 3 500 in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property and mesne profits. Opponent No. 1 thereafter filed an application to execute the decree against the applicant and on the application a notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued to the applicant. The applicant appeared in answer to the notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and applied for adjournment from time to time on the ground that he wanted to file a written statement and to contest the notice. The applications for adjournment were granted by the executing Court on three or four occasions but ultimately the executing Court refused to adjourn the proceedings any further and dismissed the last application for adjournment made by the applicant on 14th April 1961. The executing Court thereafter made an order on the notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 8th July 1961 directing a warrant for the attachment of the immovable property of the applicant to issue under Order XXI Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant appeared before the executing Court on 24th July 1961 and filed a written statement and applied that the written statement be taken on file and that he be heard in support of the contentions taken up in the written statement. The executing Court however by an order dated 4th August 1961 dismissed the application made by the applicant and proceeded with the execution of the decree against the applicant. The applicant thereupon filed a Revision Application in this Court challenging the order made by the executing Court dismissing his application for taking the written statement on file and hearing him on the merits of the contentions in reply to the notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) WHEN the Revision Application reached hearing before me Mr. M. C. Shah learned advocate appearing on behalf of opponent No. 1 contended that the executing Court was right in rejecting the application of the applicant raising various contentions against the decree sought to be executed by opponent No. 1 against the applicant. Mr. M. C. Shah urged that an order having already been passed by the executing Court on the application under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing issue of a warrant for attachment of the immovable property of the applicant in execution of the decree it was not open to the applicant to raise by way of an application any contentions which could have been urged by him in reply to the notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order passed by the executing Court on the notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure argued Mr. M. C. Shah operated as constructive res judicata and that the applicant was therefore precluded from raising at a subsequent stage of the execution proceedings the contentions which might and ought to have been urged by him in answer to the notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. M. C. Shah contended that the order passed by the executing Court rejecting the application of the applicant was therefore proper and justified and no case was made out for interfering with the same. Mr. C. G. Shastri learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant on the other hand contended that the principle of constructive res judicata did not apply in execution proceedings and that in any event that principle was required to be applied with great caution and that on the facts of the present case it could not be applied. These were broadly the rival contentions which were urged before me and both Mr. . M. C. Shah and Mr. C. G. Shastri cited various decisions in support of their respec