N.P. Gupta, J.-This revision has been filed by Gopal Lal against the order of the learned Addl. Dist. Judge No. 1, Bikaner dt. 4-5-2004 passed in Execution Case No: 9 of 2004.

2. By this order two matters were decided; one taken by the learned trial Court, to be the objection of the petitioner-judgment-debtor Gopal Lal under Section 47 read with Section 151. C.P.C.. objecting about the excitability of the decree, or in the alternative praying for partition, along with an application under Section 5/14 of the Limitation Act, while the other one was taken to be the Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 17 of 2004, said to be the application filed by the four sons of the present petitioner, under 0. 21, Rules 20 and 97, C.P.C.

3. Since, this revision is confined to the order passed in relation to Execution Case No. 9 of 1984 (sic), I need not deal with the aspect regarding Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 17 of 2004.

4. The facts of the case are, that the parties to this revision are real brothers. A suit for partition was filed by the non-petitioner Babu Lal on 9-4-1980, and in that suit. on 31-10-81, a compromise was arrived at by the parties, and formally the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. The precise terms of the compromise decree are as under :-

(Vernacular matter omitted Ed.)

5. Thus, according to para 4 of the decree, certain property covered by this para was agreed to be kept joint between the parties, each having 1/4th share, each of the parties was to remain in possession for a period of one year, by rotation, and was free to any on business therein during that period. In accordance with the rotation, to start with, the possession was physically handed over to the plaintiff Babu Lal, who was to remain in possession thereby, upto 1-11-1982, then he was to deliver possession to the non-petitioner Kishan Lal, who was to remain in possession from 1-11-1982 to 31 -10-1983. and on 1-11-1983 Kishan Lal was to hand over the possession to the present petitioner-Gopal Lal, who was to remain in possession from 1-11-1983 to 3 1-10-1984. and on 1-11-1984 Gopal Lal was to deliver possession to Moda Ram, who was to remain in possession from 1-11-1984 to 3 1-10-1985, and Moda Ram was to again deliver possession to Babu Lal on 1-11-1985, and according to this cycle, each party was to remain in possession for one year, and was to deliver possession to the next in turn. During the period of possession, the person in possession was responsible for all profits and losses. It was further stipulated, that thereafter, if it is not possible to keep the property Joint, the parties will be free to have it partitioned,

6. It further appears that since the petitioner was to remain in possession upto 3 1-10-1984, and was supposed to deliver possession to non-petitioner Moda Ram on 1-11-1984, the trouble started from that point, inasmuch as, on 31-10-1984 itself the present petitioner filed a suit for cancellation of the decree, and for injunction, on various grounds, including it being fraudulent. That suit was dismissed on 3-8-1988, against which decree a Regular First Appeal was filed, which was dismissed on 6-12-1995, and then D. B. Civil Special Appeal was filed, which was also dismissed on 9-3-2004. It was informed by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners, that a Special Leave Petition was filed against the decree, which too was dismissed, This suit was dismissed on the ground, that the suit was not maintainable on the face of the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3-A read with Order 43, Rule 1-A. C.P.C. It is in this sequence, that on 4-2-2004. i.e. Just before disposal of the D.B. Civil Special Appeal, which was decided on 9-3-2004, the petitioner filed a suit for partition. In that partition suit, he also filed an application for temporary injunction, seeking to restrain defendants from dispossessing the petitioner. That temporary injunction application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 1-4-2004. Against that order a Civi