S.K.Mal Lodha, J. - (1.) This second appeal by the judgment-debtor is directed against the order dated October 6. 1976 of the learned Additional Civil Judge. Udaipur, by which he set aside the order of the Munsif, Udaipur dated April 26, 1976.
(2.) A few facts may be recounted here; The decree-holder-respondent obtained a decree for possession of the shop situate in Mochi Vada, Udaipur on May 11, 1971. The decree, passed by the Munsif, Udaipur reads as under; "The plaintiff's suit No. 150/69 is therefore decreed with cost who shall be entitled to the vacant possession of the shop and the rent due Rs. 612/- and damages @ Rs. 17/- per month for the use and occupation till a vacant possession is delivered to him has already paid (?). The defendant is however allowed 6 months time to vacate the shop and deliver its possession to the plaintiff", On appeal, the learned Civil Judge modified the decree in so far as the plaintiff- landlord was held not entitled to recover Rs. 612 from the defendant-tenant, which has already been paid, The execution was levied by the decree-holder on January 17. 1973. warrant under Order XXI, Rule 35, C. P. C. dated March 10, 1973 was issued. In the warrant, the following is mentioned: ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED).. On April 16, 1975, an application was moved on behalf of the decree-holder for issuance of a fresh warrant for delivery of possession. It will be pertinent to quote the following from the application, which was filed by the decree-holder : ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED).. On the basis of the averments that were made in paras Nos. 2 and 3, according to the decree-holder, a dispute arose relating to the delivery of possession. The learned Munsif by his order dated April 26, 1975. dismissed the application of the decree-holder dated April 16, 1975. Feeling aggrieved, the decree-holder went in appeal and the learned Additional Civil Judge by the impugned order dated October 6, 1976, set aside the order of the Munsif and directed him to issue a fresh warrant for delivery of possession in accordance with law. Hence this appeal by the judgment-debtor.
(3.) I have heard Mr. N. N. Mathur for the Judgment-debtor-appellant and Mr. N. P. Gupta for the decree-holder-respondent.;