MANOJ K. TIWARI, J.

1. There is delay of 249 days in filing the restoration application. Learned counsel for the respondents do not oppose the delay condonation application. Cause shown in the delay Condonation application is sufficient, therefore the same is allowed and the delay in filing restoration application is allowed.

2. For the reasons stated in the restoration application, it is also allowed and appeal is restored to its original number. With the consent of parties, the appeal is heard and decided at admission stage itself.

3. This appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) read with Section 104 C.P.C., against the order passed by learned Trial Court in exercise of powers under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 C.P.C., whereby defendant No.2 (appellant herein) was directed to remove the illegal encroachment made by him on the suit property within one month, failing which, he shall be liable for detention in civil prison for15 days.

4. It transpires that the defendant no.2 (appellant herein) was a tenant in a shop, which was part of an old building situated at Gandhi Road, Dehradun. There were as many as nine shops in the said building, which were occupied