JUDGMENT Bennet, J. - This is an application in civil revision by a judgment debtor. The Plaintiff sued for possession of certain land which he claimed as his own, and for demolition of a building made on that land by the Defendant. The two lower Courts decreed the suit on condition t lat the Plaintiff should pay compensation to the Defendant for the building. The Plaintiff appealed and a learned single Judge of this Court allowed his appeal and granted a decree to the Plaintiff for possession without payment of compensation. The decree laid down: The Defendant will be entitled to remove the materials from the land within three months from today, and on his failure to do so the Plaintiff will be entitled to remove them with the help of the Court and the costs incurred in their removal will have to be paid by the Defendant, or the Plaintiff if he so chooses, will be entitled to obtain possession of the land with the building standing thereon. 2. A Letters Patent appeal was brought by the Defendant but was dismissed. Subsequently the Defendant applied to the Letters Patent Bench for extension of the period during which he might apply for removal of the materials of the building, and on the 16th August, 1934 the period was extended to the 16th November, 1934, a period which has not yet expired. 3. The present revision is directed against an order of the learned Munsif dated the 20th November, 1933. The decree-holder had applied for possession of the land and buildings and the judgment-debtor had taken an objection that the decree-holder was not entitled to the possession of the building but that the judgment-debtor should be allowed to remove the materials. The order of the lower Court stated: The Plaintiff was perfectly entitled to obtain possession over the land with the building when the Defendant had not removed the materials within three months from 28th July, 1931. The date of 28th July, 1931, was the date of the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court. 4. Learned Counsel has argued that the latter portion of the order of the learned single Judge of this Court means that the judgment-debtor should be allowed to retain possession of the building while possession of the land went to the decree-holder. 4. Learned Counsel has argued that the latter portion of the order of the learned single Judge of this Court means that the judgment-debtor should be allowed to retain possession of the building while possession of the land went to the decree-holder. I consider that that meaning cannot be placed on the words and that the words clearly mean that if the judgment-debtor does not remove the materials within three months then the decree-holder has the option of either getting the materials removed or taking possession of the land and of the buildings for his own use, The order therefore of the lower Court was correct at the time it was passed on the 20th November, 1933, and I refuse the present application in revision with costs. 5. In view however of the order of the Letters Patent Bench allowing a period up to the 16th November 1934 for the judgment-debtor to remove his materials it is obvious that that order modifi2s to that extent the order of the lower Court of the 20th November, 1933, and that it is open to the judgment-debtor to remove his materials before the 16th November, 1934, even though the lan 1 and the building have passed into the possession of the decree-holder.