JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - This appeal is by the judgment-debtor. Both the courts below have dismissed his objection under Sec. 47, C. P. C.

2. One Jagdish Saran filed a suit (No. 336 of 1942) in the Court of the Munsif, for possession by demolition of the constructions and damages against the judgment-debtor appellant. This suit was ultimately decreed on 30th April 1946. The judgment-debtor filed a second appeal in this Court which was ultimately declared to have abated by an order dated 14-9-1950. Jagdish Saran having died, Raghunandan Lal, his brother, applied for execution of the decree on 17-12-1951. This was Execution Case No. 13 of 1954. The District Judge by an order dated 27-10-1953 transferred the execution case to the Civil Judge for disposal.

3. It appears that one Ramzani claimed ownership of the constructions. He filed suit No. 240 of 1951 for an injunction against the decree-holder that his decree in suit No. 336 of 1942 was not executable. One Chhuttan also claimed title in the land and he brought suit No. 172 of 1950 against the decree-holder, Raghunandan Lal, for a similar injunction. Both these suits were decreed and an injunction was issued against Raghunandan Lal - Raghunandan Lal filed appeals against both these decrees. Ramzani and Chhuttan made an application in Execution Case No. 13 of 1954 objecting to the execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor Rahim Bux also made an application dated 4-11-1954 praying that the decree-holder cannot maintain the execution and that the same be dismissed with costs. These applications were decided by the execution court on 6-11-1954. It observed as under:

"Both the decrees are under appeal. So long as the appeals are not disposed of the decree-holder Raghunandan Lal cannot execute this decree. The decree-holder who is present in court is not prepared to execute the decree but only wants that the execution of this decree should be stayed. In the circumstances as they are in this case I do not see any reason to stay the execution of this decree. The best course in such circumstances would be to consign the record to the record room. Let the record be consigned to the record room."

4. The judgment-debtor was not satisfied. He filed an appeal against this order. His grievance was that the execution court should have dismissed the execution case No. 13 of 1954 and should have awarded costs to the judgment debtor. This appeal (No. 472 of 1954) was dismissed with costs on 22-7-1958. The appellate court held that the execution courts order "Let the record be consigned to the record room" did not put an end to the execution proceedings and the impugned order was not an order in pursuance of Sec. 47, C. P. C. with the result that no appeal lies. In the meantime Raghunandan Lal's appeals against Ramzani and Chhuttan's decrees also succeeded. Those decrees were set aside and the suits were dismissed. The appeal against Ramzani was decided on 2-6-1956 and the appeal against the decree of Chhuttan was allowed on 17th March 1958.

5. On 9-7-1956 Raghunandan Lal applied to the execution court for revival of the Execution Case No. 13 for 1954. The judgment-debtor obtained a stay order in his appeal against the order dated 6-11-1954, staying further execution proceedings. On receipt of such a stay order the execution court passed an order on 11-9-1956 directing "let the execution proceedings be revived, but they shall remain stayed in compliance with the stay order."

6. After the appeals against Chhuttan and Ramzani had been allowed and the judgment debtors appeal had also been dismissed on 22-7-1958, Raghunandan Lal made another application to the execution court. This application was in a tabular form prescribed for execution applications. It prayed that the file of Execution Case No. 13 of 1954 be summoned from the record room and proceeded with by delivery of possession as directed in decree No. 336 of 1942. This application was registered as Execution Case No. 75 of 1958. The e