( 1 ) THE appellant, original judgement creditor, has approached this Court by this Appeal From Order being aggrieved of two orders passed by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. One of these two orders is, Order dated 19th January, 1999 passed on Exh. 1 and the Office Submissions made on 16th January, 1999 in Darkhast No. 145 of 1996 and the other order is dated 15th October, 1999, which is passed below Exh. 35 in the same Darkhast.

( 2 ) THIS Appeal From Order was filed beyond the period of limitation with Civil Application No. 6070 of 2000 for condonation of delay, which was condoned by order dated 3rd September, 2001. Mr. M. S. Shah, the learned Advocate appearing for some of the respondents, submitted that, the appellant has laid the foundation of the appeal on misrepresentation, right from the beginning. In the Civil Application for condonation of delay, in paragraph-2, though Order dated 19th January, 1999 is mentioned, delay is explained by keeping the second order i. e. Order dated 15th October, 1999 in focus. Prima facie, it may appear to be a case of an inadvertent lapse on the part of the appellant and the learned Advocate, but then, on a little close scrutiny, it becomes clear that this is a case of willful misrepresentation.

( 3 ) DARKHAST No. 145 of 1996 is filed on 6th March, 1996 by the appellant-judgement creditor for enforcing the decree drawn on 7th March, 1986, that is, only after a decade. In response to a query as to why `darkhast was filed after such a long time, the learned Advocate for the appellant replied that the period prescribed for filing `darkhast is 12 years and, therefore, it is not necessary to mention the reason before the Court. Not only that, the learned Advocate asserted that no note of the `absence of the reasons be taken.

( 4 ) THE appellant, while filing Darkhast No. 145 of 1996, of his own substituted the `judgement debtors, than the one who were mentioned in the original decree. In the original decree, "ambalal Shivlal Patel, Adult, Main Proposer, New Praful Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited-Proposed", was mentioned as defendant no. 8. While in Darkhast, defendant no. 8 is described as:"new Praful Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. : (a) Chairman - Pravinchandra Rilavchand Shah, C/o. New Prakash Tea Depot, Opposite Kalupur Post Office, Ahmedabad. (b) Secretary - Prafulbhai Nandlal Thakkar, Address: Nandanvan, Sushil Park, Near Sun Rise Park, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. "the appellant also joined six other persons as defendants in Darkhast Proceedings without mentioning any reason as to why they are joined as defendants.

( 5 ) IN this Darkhast proceedings, the first order was passed by the concerned Court on 10th April, 1996, which reads as under:"issue Notice against J. D. Nos. 1 to 8 under O. 21 Rule 34 of C. P. Code. "thereafter, the matter was placed before the learned Principal Judge, Court No. 1, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, with the office submission dated 16th January, 1999. The learned Judge has passed the order as under:"vide Office Submission, dated 16th January-1999, Mtr. G. K. Dave, Deputy Registrar, has drawn by attention to the error apparent on the face of record while passing first order of issuing notice under Order-21, rule:34 of The Civil Procedure Code and has requested the Court to pass appropriate order, setting right the record in its proper perspective and in conformity with the decree passed by this Court. The certified copy of the decree is produced at exhibit-2. From the decree, it transpires that judgement-debtors Nos. 1, 4 and 5 have been ordered to execute the sale deed, transferring the right, title and interest of judgment debtors Nos. 1 and 5 and judgment debtors Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 8 have been directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. Despite this decretal order, the judgment creditor has prayed for appropriate directions against judgment debtors Nos. 1 to 8, for execution of the