JUDGMENT Bajpai, J. - This is an execution second appeal by the judgment-debtors. It appears that the decree-holders obtained a decree for the removal of certain constructions and for a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from making new constructions. In pursuance of this decree certain constructions were demolished. The decree-holders, however, filed an application in August 1931 alleging that the judgment-debtors had in contravention of the perpetual injunction granted by the court again constructed the hanp which had been removed by the court and, therefore the prayer that under Order 21, Rule 32, Code of Civil Procedure, the decree may be satisfied by arrest of the judgment-debtors and their detention in civil prison and by attachment of moveable property. The judgment-debtors denied that there was any jhanp at the spot for which the decree was passed, and that they had in no way contravened the perpetual injunction granted by the court. 2. The court of first instance appointed the Amin as a commissioner to inspect the locality and report whether the judgment-debtors had reconstructed any portion of the jhanp that had been removed. The Amin's report was to the effect that no new jhanp was constructed and that only that portion of the jhanp was in existence which had not been ordered to be removed. The decree-holders being dissatisfied with the Amin's report, another commission was issued to B. Sita Ram Vakil and his report was to the same effect. The learned Munsif inspected the locality and he was also of the same opinion but his attention was drawn to a certain pipe which was hanging at a place from where the jhanp was ordered to be removed and he, therefore, directed the judgment-debtors to remove the pipe hanging detached from the main jhanp within a week. A perusal of his judgment shows that he did not make any directions under Order 21, Rule 32, Code of Civil Procedure, but was of the opinion that the original decree ordering the removal of constructions was not wholly satisfied and he gave an order for its satisfaction. A perusal of his judgment shows that he did not make any directions under Order 21, Rule 32, Code of Civil Procedure, but was of the opinion that the original decree ordering the removal of constructions was not wholly satisfied and he gave an order for its satisfaction. An appeal was preferred to the learned District Judge against the decision of the learned Munsif and he was of the opinion that no appeal lay to his Court inasmuch as the case did not come within the purview of Section 47 CPC but that the order of the Munsif was one under Order 21, Rule 32, Code of Civil Procedure, and no appeal having been provided against such order under Order 43, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal was incompetent. He, therefore, rejected the appeal. 3. In second appeal it is contended in this Court that the view of the lower appellate Court that no appeal lay to his court was wrong inasmuch as the order passed by the Munsif was u/s 47, CPC and that it was the formal expression of an adjudication which so far as regards the court expressing it conclusively determined the rights of the parties with regard to the matters in controversy and reliance is placed upon the case of Moti Chand and Others Vs. Mahabir Prasad 4. Various rulings were cited before me relating to Order 21, Rule 32, but as I stated before the direction made by the learned munsif was not a direction made under Order 21, Rule 32, (1930) Moti Chand and Others Vs. Mahabir Prasad but was a direction for the removal of a certain pipe on the ground that the original decree had not been satisfied. It is true that the decree-holders did not allege explicitly that any construction which had been ordered to be removed by the original decree had not been removed but what they contended was that a new construction had been made and the injunction had been disobeyed. But there can be no doubt that the judgment-debtor specifically pleaded in Paragraph No. 2 of his reply that the decree had been complied with. But there can be no doubt that the judgment-debtor specifically pleaded in Paragraph No. 2 of his reply that the decree had been complied with. Upon an inspection of the locality a controversy arose between the parties whether the constructions ordered to be removed by the decree had been removed or not, and I am of the opinion that the order of the Munsif amounted to a formal expression of an adjudication conclusively determining the rights of the parties with regard to a matter in controversy between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor, regarding the satisfaction of the decree. In this view of the case an appeal lay to the learned District Judge. I therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate Court and remand the case to that court with directions to re-admit the appeal on its original number and dispose of it on the merits and according to law. Costs here and heretofore will abide the event.