1. The Second defendant (one of the judgment debtors) is the revision petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed E. A. 404 of 198o complaining to the execution court that while delivering the property in execution of the decree obtained by the respondent, certain movables belonging to him were also delivered wrongly and therefore he is entitled to have them delivered back to him. The executing court dismissed the application. Relevant portion of the order reads:

"The counsel for the petitioner argued that the movables delivered have not been mentioned in the decree schedule and hence those articles should be re-delivered. Counsel for the counter-petitioner argued that since the E. P. has already been closed, the petition is not maintainable and the proper remedy of the petitioner is to file a suit for re-delivery of the articles or the damages thereof, in view of the decision reported in Panchoo Jolaha v. Muhammad Ismail, A.I.R. 1949 Allahabad 203. On a

perusal of the E. P. the articles mentioned in this petition have also been mentioned and the petitioner/2nd judgment debtor has not filed any objection regarding that while the E. P. was pending. Now the delivery has already be