1. This petition has been preferred against the order dated 17th March 2007 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Kheralu below application Exhibit-85 preferred in Regular Darkhast No. 12 of 1983, whereby the said application was allowed and possession warrant in respect of the property mentioned in Regular Darkhast No.12/1993 was ordered to be issued.

2. The facts in brief are that respondent no.1 herein was the owner of the agricultural lands bearing survey nos. 448, 492 and 495 situated in Village Kheralu. On 22.05.1953 respondent no.1 had mortgaged the said lands with one Chaudhari Ramjibhai Dhanjibhai. However, in the year 1966, respondent no.1 preferred a suit being Civil Suit No.48 of 1966 for redemption of the mortgage. In the said suit, final decree came to be passed on 31.07.1980. Against the said decree, respondent No.2 and others preferred First Appeal No.192 of 1980 before the District Court. However, the said appeal was dismissed.

3. In the year 1983, respondent no.1 preferred Regular Darkhast No.12 of 1983, wherein, possession warrant under Order 21 Rule 35 & 36 of Code of Civil Procedure was issued in respect of the said property. In the said proceedings, the petitioner preferred application Exhibit-77 raising objections against the execution of decree passed in Civil Suit No.48/1966. After considering the objections, the Court below passed order dated 08.03.1990 below application Exhibit-1, whereby, it was ordered that until the proceedings under the Bombay Agricultural Lands & Tenancy Act pending before the Mamlatdar & ALT concerned are over, the decree-holder of Civil Suit No.48/1966 shall not take possession of the property in question from the 'tenant', the petitioner herein. Pursuant to the passing of the order dated 08.03.1990, the execution proceedings remained stayed for a long period.

4. In the meantime, the petitioner had also preferred a suit being Civil Suit No.68 of 1988 praying for a declaration that the decree for redemption dated 31.07.1980 was not binding upon him. However, subsequently, the said suit was withdrawn on 20.02.1992. 4.

5. Respondent no.1 herein challenged the said order dated 08.03.1990 passed in the execution proceedings by way of filing Civil Revision Application No.1232 of 1990 before this Court. The said application was rejected by order dated 17.06.1995.

6. Thereafter, in the year 2007, respondent no.1 preferred application dated 17.03.2007 (Exhibit-85) in the pending Regular Darkhast No.12 of 1983 praying to issue a possession warrant in respect of the suit property. On the same day, the learned Principal Civil Judge, Kheralu, allowed the said application, by impugned order dated 17.03.2007. Respondent no.1 had also preferred a separate application Exhibit-88 before the executing Court praying to provide police protection to him, which was also granted.

7. Thereafter, on 19.03.2007, the petitioner preferred application Exhibit-92 praying that the order passed on 17.03.2007 below application Exhibit-85 and the possession taken by the bailiff in pursuance thereof, be cancelled. However, the said application came to be rejected on the same day vide order dated 19.03.2007.

8. On 21.03.2007 respondent no.1 preferred application Exhibit-94 praying to direct the defendants to execute re-conveyance deed on the basis of the decree passed in Civil Suit No.48/1966. The said application was also allowed on the same day by order dated 21.03.2007.

9. On the same day, i.e. on 21.03.2007, the petitioner had preferred application Exhibit-97 for contempt of Court for committing breach of the earlier order of the executing Court. The said application was rejected by order dated 02.04.2007.

10. In the meanwhile, on 23.03.2007, respondent no.1 preferred application Exhibit100 praying for modification of the order dated 08.03.1990. The said application came to be allowed vide order dated 02.04.2007.

11. Thereafter, on 10.04.2007 respondent no.1 preferred another application Exhibit