P.K. Lohra, J.

Appellants/objectors, appalled by the judgment and order dated 28th May 2008, rendered in Civil Misc. Case No.77-B of 1996 by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, have laid this appeal under Order 21, Rule 101 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC').

2. By the judgment and order impugned, the learned District Judge, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court') has rejected their objections under Order 21, Rule 99 read with Section 151 CPC and ordered for restoration of possession of the first respondent decree-holder on Plots No. E-215, F-270 and F-271 allotted by second respondent RIICO in Industrial Area, II Phase, Basni, Jodhpur.

3. The instant appeal has a checkered history and therefore in order to make an effectual adjudication of the lis involved, it has become imperative for the Court to recapitulate the entire factual gamut in brevity.

Narration of Facts:

The bare necessary facts, in chronological order, are as follows:

The first respondent decree-holder firm, at the threshold, applied for industrial plot on 15th February 1977 by filing an application before second respondent RIICO - the judgment-debtor, craving allotment of land measuring 8000 sq.mtrs. After scrutinizing the application of the decree-holder, the second respondent allotted industrial Plots No. E-231, F-232 and F-233, measuring 8000 sq.mtrs. to the decree-holder in Industrial Area, II Phase, Basni, Jodhpur.

Pursuant to the allotment, lease-deed for the aforesaid industrial plots was registered on 20th September 1978. Subsequently, the second respondent judgment-debtor rescinded part of the allotment of plots made in favour of decree-holder and cancelled allotment of land measuring 4000 sq.mtrs. This action of the second respondent RIICO obviously became a cause of acrimony between the rival parties, and thereupon respondent decree-holder approached this Court by preferring Civil Writ Petition No. 1043 of 1981. The writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 06.01.1994 and after hearing submissions of the contesting parties, the Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with under-mentioned directions:

".Therefore, it is in fitness of things that the matter is referred back to the respondents to refer the matter to the arbitration because the petitioner has seriously disputed that the Annexure 16 issued by them reducing the area of the petitioner from 9,250 sq.mtrs to 4,000 sq.mtrs. Whether reduction of area is right or wrong. Thus, it is directed that the respondent No.1 RIICO, Jodhpur shall refer the matter to the Collector for arbitration in terms of the clause 3(h) of the lease-deed. In these circumstances, it is directed that the respondents shall refer the matter to Collector by way of arbitration and on the claim filed by the petitioner within one month from today and thereafter the respondent shall refer the matter within another period of one month and it is expected that Collector shall dispose of the matter as far as possible within three months thereafter. So far 4000 sq.mtrs of land which is allotted to the petitioner, petitioner may continue in possession of that land and other remaining land shall not be alienated till the matter is decided by the Collector."

4. In adherence of the directions of this Court quoted herein above, which is on record as Ex.D-2/A, matter was referred for arbitration to the sole arbitrator - District Collector, Jodhpur, and it was registered as Case No.05/1994. The arbitrator pronounced its award on 30th September 1994 favouring the cause of decree-holder and declared it entitled for the remaining plot measuring 4000 sq.mtrs with a further direction to the second respondent RIICO to handover the possession of the aforesaid land.

5. After passing of the arbitral award, the first respondent decree-holder applied before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur for making award rule of the Court and the said petition of