An order passed in a writ petition is not a decree or an order executable under the Civil Procedure Code.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision directed IN against order dated 27-7-1979, refusing to give back possession of Survey No. 88, 89 and 90 alleged to have taken back from the applicant in pursuance of an order passed by the Executing Court behind his back.

( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this revision are unusual. A writ petition (M. P. No. 183 of 1973) was submitted by Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Harijan Samuhik Krishi sahakari Sanstha. Salaiya Barodi Tehsil Karera, District Shivpuri against State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Chief Secretary, Collector Shivpuri, and additional Secretary M. P. State Revenue. This writ petition was allowed by order passed by a Division Bench of this Court -- vide order dated 30-11-1978, whereby a writ in the nature of certiorari was directed to be issued for quashing (i) order passed by the Collector Shivpuri dated 15-11-1971 and (ii) the order passed by respondent No. 3 (Additional Secretary, M. P. State Revenue) dated 6-1-1973 and the non-petitioner was restrained from giving effect to them in any manner whatsoever. The respondents were directed to treat the order of allotment, the agreement (Patta) dated 26-8-1971 to be valid and operative. No order was made as to costs.

( 3 ) IT appears that the non-applicant-decree-holder Society submitted an application for execution. In column No. 1, number of the suit was stated to be "183/73 appeal High Court. " In column No. 3, the date of passing of the decree was stated to be "30-11-1978. " By this subterfuge adopted by the non-applicant the executing Court was persuaded to believe that this Court had passed decree in some civil appeal No. 183/73 on 30-11-1978. In this application prayer was made for issuance of warrant for delivery of possession of land comprised in seven survey numbers (detailed in column No. 11)including survey No. 88. 89 and 90 ). A red pencil line has been drawn by me in column No. 11 of the execution-application from A to A running under these survey numbers. This execution application was submitted to the lower Court on 14-4-1979. The office reported certain irregularities. The decree-holder was directed to rectify them and 25-8-1979 was fixed as date in the case. However, on 27-6-1979, the non-applicant submitted an application along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court in M. P. No. 183 of 1973, on 30-11-1978 soliciting order for issuance of warrant for delivery of possession. On 27-6-1979 the case was withdrawn and on 29-6-1979, the Court passed an order for issuance of warrant of possession and again the date fixed was 25-8-1979. In between the warrant for possession was executed and possession of land including the land comprised in survey No. 88, 89 and 90 was delivered to the decree-holder non-applicant.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the applicant drew attention of the executing Court to the aforesaid facts by application dated 20-7-1979 and submitted that the entire proceedings are null and void. The decree-holder opposed this application by reply dated 26-7-1979 inter alia on the ground that order passed in M. P. No. 183 of 1973 by this Court had attained finality in absence of further challenge in the Supreme Court. This application has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this revision.

( 5 ) IN this revision, Shri Motilal Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that the impugned order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. On behalf of the non-applicant Shri rameshwar Dayal Sharma appeared on 27-11-1979. On that day, this Court ordered requisition of the executing Court's record. Thereafter, the case was listed on 29-11-1979 but since none appeared on behalf of the non-applicant, on that day, the case was listed for today. However, even today none appeared on behalf of the decree-holder to resist the revision.

( 6 ) HAVING heard Shri Motilal Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, I have come to the conclusion that the revision deserves to be al