The provisions contained in Order 45, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the execution of a decree which has been maintained by the High Court and the special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court has been rejected.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Indore, in Civil Execution Case No. 198a of 1965.

( 2 ) THE facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that the non-applicant decree-holder obtained a decree for eviction against the petitioner-judgment-debtor. The execution of this decree was pending in the court below. The execution was stayed on account of appeal to this Court and after the appeal in this Court was disposed of and the decree was maintained, a special leave petition was preferred before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India and the supreme Court by its order dated 8-12-19t6 dismissed the leave petition and passed the following order.

"special leave petition is rejected but the decree for eviction passed against the petitioner will not be executed up to 31st December, 1978 on condition that the petitioner will pay to the respondents the monthly rent regularly from month to month on or before the 30th day of next succeeding month. "

By this order the special leave petition was thus rejected but it was directed that the decree for eviction shall not be executed up to 31st December, 1978, the execution petition which was pending before the court below therefore was stayed up to 31st December. 1978 and when thereafter the execution further proceeded an objection was filed by the petitioner raising a plea that under order 45, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure a decree or a final order passed by the Supreme Court could only be executed in the manner provided for in Order 45, Rule 15 of the Code. The learned Court below rejected this objection and against this order the present revision petition has been filed.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the supreme Court is a final order and the orders passed by the subordinate courts merged into that order and within the meaning of the language of Order 45, rule 15 of the Code the execution of this order could only be done by following the procedure prescribed in Order 45, Rule 15 of the Code. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this court noted in Madarsa Hakimia etc. V. Mulla Ali Bhai, 1964 MPLJ (Note A) 205, and Birendra Bikram Singh T. Basdeo, AIR 1936 Oudh 185 and Durga Charan chatterjee v. Smt. Benodini Debi, AIR 1944 Cal 301 (1 ).

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-applicant, on the other hand, contended that the order passed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court clearly shows that the decree passed by the courts below was maintained as the special leave petition was rejected. But what their Lordships further ordered was that the decree shall not be executed up to a particular date. This, according to learned counsel, does not amount to any modification of the decree passed by the lower court and maintained by this Court. It was also contended that what was being executed in the Court below is not this order of the Supreme Court but the decree which has been maintained by the High Court and thus it was not necessary for the non-applicant to follow the procedure prescribed in Order 45, rule 15 of the Code. Alternatively, the non-applicant also submitted an application in this Court, along with the certified copy of the order passed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court making a prayer that the decree be executed.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the decree for eviction was maintained by this Court and a special leave petition was preferred before their Lordships of the supreme Court. The operative part of the order of their Lordships of the supreme Court quoted above clearly goes to show that the special leave petition was rejected, which clearly means that the decree passed and maintained by this Court is further maintained. What is further ordered makes the position clear. It has been further observed that "the decree for eviction passed against the petitioner will not be exec