- (1.)The appellants who are the decree-holders sued out execution of the decree ultimately confirmed in S. A. No. 275/1965 on 24-2-1966. For delivery of possession of the property they made an application in L. C. D. No. 140/1966 on the file of the First Additional Munsiff, Hubli and obtained possession of the property on 17-4-1966. On 1-6-1966, the decree-holders filed a memo marked Ex. 14 acknowledging delivery of possession of the properties and seeking suitable orders. On the same day, the judgment-debtors made an application marked Ex. 15 opposing the memo filed by the decree-holders, stating that the possession of the property was handed over to them. The judgment-debtors further submitted that the purported delivery of possession on 17-4-1966 was not legal and that the same is not binding on the judgment-debtors and that they may be given an opportunity to file objections in this regard. The learned Munsiff passed an order on Exhibit 14 in the following terms: "possession deliverd. E. P. disposed off".
(2.)This order is dated 3-6-1966. On the same day, the learned Munsiff rejected the application of the judgment-debtors seeking an opportunity to file objections in regard to delivery of possession. Against this order dated 3-6-1966, the judgment-debtors filed Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1966 before the Civil Judge, Hubli. The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Munsiff and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh trial and disposal according to law. It is against this order the decree-holders have preferred this Second Appeal,
(3.)This appeal appears to have been registered earlier as Civil Revision Petition No. 658 of 1967 but later, it came to be registered as Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 36 of 1969. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge is not to set aside the order passed on Ex. 14 but merely deals with the order rejecting Ex. 15.
;