J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ambala, dated November 17, 1988, whereby the order of the executing Court dated November 28, 1987, dismissing the execution application was set aside, with the observations :- "However, Devi Dayal would be free to file objections to the execution if warranted by law and so advised. If such objections are filed, the executing Court will proceed to dispose of the petition and the execution application according to law."
(2.) AT the time of the motion hearing, it was contended on behalf of Devi Dayal, objector, that the appeal before the Additional District Judge was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, the landlord Sohan Lal filed the ejectment application against Devi Dayal (Petitioner) on August 16, 1985, which he got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated June 6, 1986. Devi Dayal, then filed Civil Suit No. 40, on December 4, 1986, against Sohan Lal for the grant of the permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with his peaceful physical possession of the house No. 1250, Johripura Mohalla, Jagadhri, in pursuance of the decree dated October 29, 1985, obtained by Sohan Lal against Siri Ram. In that suit, counsel of the parties made a joint statement on April 7, 1986, that the defendant shall not forcibly eject the plaintiff except in due course of law. In view of the same, the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit property. It was also observed that the plaintiff can be ejected from the demised premises in due course of law.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the parties are not aware whether the said suit is still pending or has been finally disposed of. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, the objector Devi Dayal, could not be ejected in execution of the ejectment order obtained by Sohan Lal against Siri Ram. According to the learned counsel, the warrants issued by the executing Court for possession of the suit property were wrong and illegal.;