N.K. Jain, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Bali dt. 9.1.91.
(2.) IN brief the facts of this case are that suit No. 44/85 for ejectment was filed against Sheshmal in the year 1985, and exparte order was passed. In execution a warrant of possession has been issued by the learned trial court on 27.9.89. The petitioner is the legal representative of judgment debtor during the pendency of the execution petition has filed an application under Order 21 Rule 26 real with 151 C.P.C. It was alleged by the petitioner that at the time of passing the decree, there was an oral compromise between the parties and while maintaining the earlier rent on the basis of oral compromise it was agreed that out of disputed premises one room over the shop was to be handed over by the judgment -debtor to the decree -holder. It was prayed that as a new tenancy was created between the parties, the possession cannot be given to the decree -holder in execution petition and execution may be stayed till the application is decided. The learned trial court rejected the application. Hence, this revision. Mr. K.C. Samdariya, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to non -payment of Rs. 300/ - as per order, the court has erred in rejecting the application. He has also submitted that the decree -holder is not liable to get the suit premises vacated in this execution proceedings, particularly when there was a new contract and rent receipt given by the counsel of decree -holder is on record. He has further submitted that without holding an enquiry, learned court below has erred in rejecting his application. He has placed reliance on Shyam Lal v. Murlidhar (All.), A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 609, Indra v. Narayan Chand C.J., A.I.R. (Raj.) 283 and Kashiram v. Hansraj, R.L.W 1982 . 648.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the case law as well as the impugned order.;