( 1. ) THIS revision is from an order dated March 4, 1968, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case no. 6 of 1968. The petitioner in his revision has also mentioned the order dated March 2, 1968.

( 2. ) ON March 2, 1968, the decree-holder auction-purchaser made after application under Order 21, rule 95, Civil Procedure Code, for possession of house Nos. 642 and 643, Madhatal, Jabalpur, previously known as "sunder vilas Theatre" and now known as "plaza Talkies". The learned 1st Additional District Judge ordered issue of a warrant of possession. When the process server went to the premises of the Plaza Talkies, the Manager resisted delivery of possession and he wrote his protest on the warrant itself which was presented to him by the process server. The warrant remained unserved and was returned by the process server.

( 3. ) THEREUPON, on March 4, 1968, the auction-purchaser made another application under Order 21, rule 95, Civil Procedure Code, for issuance of a fresh warrant. The learned trial Judge passed the order under revision in these words :

"nazir, to re-issue the warrant for execution. The S. P. be directed to act with firmness in execution of warrant provided no physical resistance by violence is apprehended. "

( 4. ) BEFORE dealing with the correctness and validity of this order of march 4, 1968, let it be mentioned that on the same date the revision-petitioner made an application to the executing Court under section 151, read with order 21, rule 96, Civil Procedure Code, and also made an application in Misc. Judicial Case No. 6 of 1968 for stay of re-issuance of the warrant. The learned additional District Judge, on the stay application, made an order of stay "until further orders" and registered the petitioners application under section 151, read with Order 21, rule 96, Civil Procedure Code, as Misc. Judicial Case no. 7 of 1968. He further ordered issuance of notice to the auction-purchaser and fixed a date for hearing of that application. About this last mentioned application of the revision-petitioner (Misc. Judicial Case No. 7 of 1968), i shall say something at the end of this order.

( 5. ) COMING back to the order dated March 4, 1968, passed in Misc. Judicial Case No. 6 of 1968 on the auction-purchasers application of that date, it appears to me quite clear that the learned Additional District Judge did not fully apply his mind to the nature of the application and to the procedure which he was to follow with regard to that application. If he had done so, he would not have passed an order for re issuance of a warrant for execution and at the same time directing firmness to be adopted by the process server.

( 6. ) IN this second application of March 4, 1968, which was styled by the auction-purchaser as one under Order 21, rule 95, Civil Procedure Code, he has stated the facts that on his application dated March 2, 1968, a warrant was issued and on the following day, that is, 3rd March, the process server went to the spot to obtain possession and the process server showed the warrant to Shri G. V. S. Chouhan, Manager, Plaza Talkies, who runs the Talkies on behalf of M/s. Supreme General Films Exchange (P) Ltd. and who holds the property on behalf of the judgment-debtors and as such is bound by the decree and who was, therefore, also bound to deliver possession to the auction-purchaser. Reasons are given to show that the auction-purchaser is entitled to physical possession and then the application proceeds on to say : but he unlawfully resisted the delivery of possession and wrote on the warrant that he refuses to deliver possession. For all these reasons, M/s. Supreme General Films exchange (P) Ltd. , have no right to resist the delivery of the possession to the present auction-purchaser and his action is illegal and amounts to a contempt of the lawful authority of this Court. "

(Italics by me ). Having said so, it was contended in the application that the process s