This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 395 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Turaiyur against the appellate order in A.S. No. 887 of 1948, directing them to re-deliver possession of a house to the respondent in this appeal. The appellants who are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 395 of 1947 obtained a decree for possession of a house on the 8th March, 1948. The defendant-respondent filed an application E.A. No. 194 of 1948 on the 15th April, 1948, for stay of execution of the decree pending his filing an appeal and obtaining an order of stay from the appellate Court. Notice of this application was served on the pleader for the plaintiffs, and this application, after several adjournments and after objection raised on behalf of the plaintiffs, was finally heard on the nth June, 1948, when stay of execution of the decree was granted by the District Munsiff of Turaiyur pending the obtaining of stay from the appellate Court. The decree in O.S. No. 395 of 1947 was apparently transmitted to the District Munsiff’s Court of Ariyalur for execution, and it is not shown to me how the decree was transmitted for execution to a different Munsiff altogether. However it is not material for a consideration of the points raised in this case. On 15th June, 1948, the appellants filed an execution petition in the Court of the District Munsiff of Ariyalur for recovery of possession of the suit house in execution of the decree without bringing to the notice of that Court the order of stay passed on the 11th June, 1948, by the Court which passed the decree. A delivery order was made on that date and the warrant for delivery of possession was executed on the 19th June, 1948. Plaintiffs recovered possession of the property. On the 21st June, 1948, the respondents filed their appeal in the District Court of Tiruchirapalli and applied for stay of the lower Court’s decree, and after interim stay was granted a report was called for on the objection of the appellants that in fact the property had been taken possession of in execution, and on the strength of the report of the Commissioner the District Court made the final order on the 28th July, 1948, whereby the stay granted by that Court dated the 29th June, 1948, was made absolute with regard to the portion not delivered, viz., one room. In other respects the petition was dismissed, as it was found from the report of the Commissioner that excepting one room the rest of the property was delivered over to the appellants. The respondent filed an application E.A. No. 231 of 1948, in the District Munsiff’s Court of Ariyalur under sections 47, 144 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying that the Court may be pleased to set aside the order of delivery dated the 19th June, 1948, and order re-delivery of the property. The learned District Munsiff of Ariyalur dismissed the petition observing that if at all a case was made out for contempt of Court rather than for re-delivery. As against that order A.S. No. 887 of 1948 was filed by the respondent and the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli allowed the appeal and directed re-delivery. This appeal is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge.

The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that no appeal lay from the order of the District Munsiff of Ariyalur in E.A. No. 231 of 1948 as it did not come under any of the provisions, viz., sections 47, 144 and 151 of the Code. The learned counsel urges that it is not a matter relating to execution, and as such it would not come under section 47, nor was it an application under section 144 as there is no restitution. The lower appellate Court, held, relying on Sahu Nand Kishore v. Shadi Ram1, Superior Bank, Ld., Muzaffarnagar v. Budh Singh2 and Mulraj v. Buramal3, that such an application could come within the scope of section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. In those cases it was held that where a sale takes place in contravention of the express direction of Court, the Cou