B.R.ARORA. J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated February 22, 1991, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur, in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 224 of 1989.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Dhan Raj filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioner-defendant in the Court of the Munsif City Jodhpur. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Munsif City, Jodhpur. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Jodhpur, which was ultimately heard by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, who allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The defendant preferred a second appeal before this Court and during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the parties arrived at a compromise and the appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise The plaintiff decree - holder filed an application for execution of the decree. . The judgment debtor filed objections under Section 47 C. P. C. Alongwith the objections, an application under sec. 47 read with sec. 151 C P. C. was also, filed for staying the execution of the decree. That stay application, filed by the judgment-debtor, was allowed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur by his order dated December 11, 1989, and the learned Munsif City stayed the execution of the decree till the disposal of the objections filed by the judgment-debtor under Section 47 C. P. C. Dissatisfied with the order granting stay by the learned Munsif City, Jodhpur, the plaintiff decree-holder filed a revision - petition before this Court, which was ultimately decided by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice by his order dated January 30, 1991. After the disposal of the revision petition by the High Court, the plaintiff decree-holder moved an application under section 47 read with section 151 C. P. C. to hear the stay petition afresh in view of the order dated January 30, 1991, passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. This application was contested by the judgment - debtor and the learned Munsif City, Jodhpur, by his order dated February 22, 1991, ordered for re-hearing of the stay petition. It is against this order that the present revision - petition has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non - petitioner, the decree - holder who has put - in appearance. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court, while deciding the S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 153 of 1991 directed the trial Court to dispose of the objections filed by the judgment - debtor expeditiously and dismissed the revision petition. No new facts for re-hearing the stay petition arise in the case and hence the learned lower Court had no jurisdiction to re - hear the arguments in the stay application. In support of the case, the learned consel for the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment rendered in the case of Vinod Kumar Arera vs. Smt. Surjeet Kaur (1 ). The learned counsel for the non -petitioner, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court and he has stated that this Court while deciding the revision - petition, directed the trial Court to hear the matter afresh, which mean 'to re-hear the parties on the stay petition itself. ' He has, also, raised a preliminary objection that the present revision petition is not maintainable as the order passed by the learned lower Court, at the most, can be said to be a wrong interpretation of the order passed by this Court and cannot be said to be exercising its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner has placed reliance over: Pandurang Dhoudi Chougale Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav (2) and Harak Chand vs. the State of Rajasthan (3 ). I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. This Court, while deciding the revision petition, specifically observed that at the present stage, the order passed is an interlocutory order in nature and it does not finally decide the controversy. After observing this, this Court directed the trial Court to decide the objections filed by the judgment debtor afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment. This word 'afresh' has created some problem in the mind of the learned trial Court, otherwise the construction of the order, passed by this Court, is very much clear and this Court directed the trial Court to decide all the objections raised by the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor expeditiously. As the matter relates to the year 1979 and as the suit was an old one; therefore, this Court observed that the decree-holder is definitely entitled to enjoy its fruits. This Court, therefore, observed that instead of bifurcating the matter the Executing Court should have decided all the objections raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The last paragraph of the order, passed by this Court, makes it very much clear that this Court directed the trial Court to decide the objections as expeditiously as possible and passed an order for execution of the decree in accordance with law. This Court never observed that the trial Court should re-decide the stay petition. When this Court directed the trial Court to decide all the objections raised by the judgment-debtor and instead of deciding all the objections the learned Executing Court fixed the case for re-hearing the stay petition, the lower Court has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. The stay petition was already decided and once the stay petition stands decided, the lower Court had no jurisdiction to re-decide it again and, therefore, it was not the question of wrong interpretation given to a document, but is an exercise of jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned lower Court deserves to be quashed and set-aside. In the result, this revision petition, filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur, in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 224 of 1989 is set aside and the learned lower Court is directed to decide all the objections raised by the judgc-mentdebtor in the application under Section 47 C. P. C..;