Padhye, J—This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor. In execution of a decree for specific performance passed in favour of the decree-holder-respondent in civil Suit No. 39 of 1933 he took possession of certain property and now claims an additional property, namely, the open site A.B.C.J. shown in the decree-holder's map which according to the decree-holder was included in the property that was agreed to be sold to him by the judgment-debtor and in respect of which a decree for specific performance was passed in his favour. Both the Courts below have held that the site A.B.C.J. was included is the property agreed to be sold, and in respect of which a decree was passed and the decree-holder was therefore entitled to be put in possession of that property in execution of the decree in civil Suit No. 99 of 1933.

2. Apart from the merits of the case, the appellant-judgment-debtor contended that the executing Court had no jurisdiction to execute the decree in respect of possession of the site; as the decree passed in civil Suit No. 99 of 1933 was merely a decree for specific performance and not for delivery of possession. The question was no doubt raised for first time in sec