1. The order under challenge in this revision makes very unhappy reading, Before the learned Munsiff there was an objection to delivery by judgment-debtors 3 and 4, an objection which called for notice and disposal. On 26-8-1978 when the case came up before the learned Munsiff he has disposed of the objection thus:

"Heard both sides, judgment debtors have no objection, it is conceded. Hence for delivery to: 30-8-1978. For report to 31-8-1978".

As an order expressing the attitude of party or counsel giving up his objection on record what is stated by the learned Munsiff is vague and inadequate. The concession seen not made in writing should be reflected properly and well in the court's order if that is to be accepted by an appellate or revisional court as a relinquishment of the case by a party.

2. The consequences of any court committing an inadvertent error or mistake in noting that a party did not press his case are extremely grave and may result in perversion of justice. Every court which bases its decision on concession by a party or counsel must satisfy itself that it has not made a mistake in understanding the party or counsel and must express what has been submitted