(1.) This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been. filed on behalf of the plaintiff decree holder and is directed against the order of the execution court dated 22nd February, 1971, by which the learned Judge lias refused the application of the decree-holder for action under Rule 32 or order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and has further directed him to file separate applications against the judgment-debtors.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition arc that the petitioner in this revision instituted a suit on 30th November, 1965 against 7 defendants on the allegations that the plaintiff was the owner of a plot of land situated in Shakti Nagar, Delhi which had been purchased by her on 15th March 1955 and that after the purchase, she had on his request allowed defendant No. 1, who was a washerman, permission to use the plot of land in dispute for the purposes of drying up his laundry and thereafter he put up Shuntis and Chappers and also allowed defendant No. 2 to 7 to put up structures and use the land and that subsequently the plaintiff withdrew the permission and asked the defendants to discontinue the use of the land and remove their material and structures. The relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit was a mandatory injunetion directing defendant Nos. I to 7 to remove the existing Jhuggies and material from the plot of land in dispute and to discontinue their respective use of the same. The suit was contested and was dismissed by the court of first instance by a decree dated 4th March. 1968.
(3.) Aggrieved by the said decree, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of the Senior Sub Judge. The appeal came up for hearing on 7th December, 1948 when. a compromise was recorded between the parlies. Statements were made on behalf of the defendants as well as their counsel and by the attorney of the plaintiff-appellant and his counsel to the effect that the uppeal of the plaintiff be allowed and the plaintiff would pay Rs. 700.00- to the defendant-respondents Girdhari Lal, Jagan Nath and Maharaj Din by 1st January, 1969 after which the decree would be executable and the respondents would deliver vacant possession of the disputed land by removing the super-structures etc. With regard to Ram Singh, defendant respondent the compromise was that no amount would be paid to him but the decree against him would not be executable till 7th October, 1969. In view of the statements of the parties the appellate court passed the following order :-