PURANIK,J. - (1.)THIS Order shall dispose of both the above civil revision applications, inasmuch as they arise out of the same suit and decree.
(2.)THE non -applicant No. 1, Damodhar, had filed a suit bearing No. 281 of 1980 on the file of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, against the applicant and other non -applicants 2 to 4 for declaration and perpetual injunction as regard to the suit plot. This suit was titled as a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, but in the prayer clause no relief of perpetual injunction was asked for. The non -applicant No. 1 plaintiff prayed in the suit as follows: (1) Hold that petitioner is the absolute owner of the portion demarcated as DCA and KFGH etc. to the exclusion of all respondents. (2) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to declare that the sale deed executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 is void, (3) That any other relief to which this petitioner is entitled to under the said facts and circumstances. In the plaint pleadings the non -applicant No. 1 has alleged that he was in possession of the suit land. The present applicant contested the suit, but during the pendency of the suit, she remained absent as she was not informed of the date and progress of the suit and the case was proceeded ex -parte against the applicant. The ex -parte decree came to be passed in the suit of the non -applicant No. 1 on November 25, 1981.
As already noted above, the prayer was not for perpetual injunction or possession. However, the trial Court, by its ex -parte judgment, ordered as follows: It is declared that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. ii on April 9, 1969 is void. It is ordered that the defendants shall not disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot and. house marked by letters -CAID and EFGH -in the plaint map. The defendants shall bear their own costs and that of the plaintiff... Immediately thereafter, the non -applicant No. 1 plaintiff, as the decree holder, filed regular darkhast No. 55/1981 before the trial Court and the trial Court, without applying its mind to the main relief claimed or the decree awarded, issued a warrant of possession of the suit premises initially against the applicant Mrs. Asha and subsequently against the occupier of the premises, namely, M/s, National Rerolling Mills. The said warrant of possession was objected by M/s. National Rerolling Mills on the ground that they were the tenant of Mrs. Asha. The warrant was returned unexecuted and the trial Court issued a fresh warrant of possession against M/s, National Rerolling Mills.

(3.)IT appears that one Shri Kawale, in his capacity as manager of the said National Rerolling Mills filed an application before the trial Court for stay of the warrant of possession on February 18, 1982 on the ground that he was in possession of the suit property and he had no notice of the civil suit even though he was a necessary party. The present applicant Mrs. Asha, against whom the ex -parte decree was passed, also filed an application for setting aside the decree on various grounds.