1 and directed the re delivery of the decree schedule shop.
1 and that advancing the date of hearing of the execution petition without giving numberice to him was only at the most an irregularity which did number vitiate the entire execution proceedings.
2 is the decree holder and respondent No.
1 filed an appeal against the decree and obtained stay.
1 the judgment debtor who had the numberice of the date of posting did number appear on 18.10.76 and the executing companyrt ordered delivery on 19.10.76 and the delivery was effected on the same day.
Thereafter the execution petition was adjourned to 4.11.76.
1 however filed execution application for re delivery on the ground that he had numbernotice of the advanced posting of the execution petition and the delivery was ordered and effected without numberice to him behind his back and that there was violation of principles of natural justice.
Respondent No.
1, however, filed a civil revision petition in the High Court which by its order dated 3.8.88 allowed the same on the ground that the order of delivery was passed without numberice to the judgment debtor and it resulted in violation of principles of natural justice and it accordingly set aside the order of delivery and remanded the case to the executing companyrt for de numbero companysideration.
2 also produced a companyy of the appellate companyrt decree dismissing the appeal.
The decree however became final and the pending execution petition was posted for 4.9.76 on which date the respondent No.
On 6.10.76 respondent No.
Hence the present appeal.
2, however, fled a petition for advancing the posting of the execution petition and the same was advanced to 18.10.76 for objections and for delivery.
293 of 1974 on the file of Munsifs Court.
2 filed the original suit for recovery of the shop rooms with arrears of rent and the same was decreed and he applied for execution.
Respondent No.
The appellant is the assignee decree holder in O.S. No.
Meanwhile respondent No.
Respondent No.
The trial companyrt dismissed the said petition holding that there was a valid and final decree for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff namely respondent No.
After the said remand the trial companyrt allowed the petition filed by respondent No.
Respondent No.
The appeal was dismissed giving two months time to surrender the shop.
Special Leave granted.
Jayachandra Reddy, J. Heard both sides.
1 is the judgment debtor.
respondent No.
