( 1 ) THIS revision purporting to be under S. 36 of Act 38 of 1902 and section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class. Delhi, dated 18-9-1966 by means of which the learned Subordinate Judge declined to grant the prayer for stay and refused to well back the warrants issued by him without hearing the decree-holder. Notice to the decree-holder was given by the learned Subordinate Judge for 14-10-1966 on the objections raised by the present petitioner in this Court against the application for execution presented by Partap Chand, respondent in this Court. ( 2 ) IT appears that Partap Chand had obtained a decree or eviction in June, 1956 and in the proceedings for the execution of that decree, the Industrial and Trade Publications (P) Ltd. , present petitioner in this Court, laid a claim to remain in possession. Warrants of possession were issued by the executing Court but the present petitioner obstructed the execution of those warrants. The decree-holder applied for police aid and after recording the evidence led, Shri V. K. Kaushal, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi recommended the case of the decree-holder to the learned District Judge for making a request to the District Magistrate to provide police aid to the decree-holder. The learned District Judge, however, sent the record of the case back with the direction that proceedings under O. XXI, Rules 97, 98 and 99, Code of Civil Procedure. should first be followed. According to the learned District Judge, request could not be made to the District Magistrate without first following the provisions contained in the Rules of Order XXI mentioned above. Whether or not the learned District Judge was right in making this order, does not concern this Court at this stage. THE learned Subordinate Judge, in view of this order of the learned District Judge, felt helpless and directed the decree-holder to follow the procedure under Order XXI, Rule 97, before proceeding further in the matter. This order was made on 30-5-1966 and the case was adjourned to 3-6-1966 The decree- holder apparently did not pursue the matter of police aid but presented a fresh execution application in September. 1966. The previous execution application seems to have lapsed as infructuous and no point is sought to be made before me on this score. This order was made on 30-5-1966 and the case was adjourned to 3-6-1966 The decree- holder apparently did not pursue the matter of police aid but presented a fresh execution application in September. 1966. The previous execution application seems to have lapsed as infructuous and no point is sought to be made before me on this score. IT appears that in the fresh execution application, warrants for possession were issued by Shri V K Kaushal, the learned Subordinate Judge dealing with the execution matter. The present petitioner then seems to have applied for staying the execution proceedings and for calling back the warrants of possession but the learned Subordinate Judge did not consider this to be a fit case for allowing at that stage the decree-holder. On 15-9-1966, the learned Subordinate Judge issued notice to the decree-holder for 14-10-1966. It is against this order, as observed earlier, that the present revision petition has been presented. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has, to begin with, contended in his usual persuasive manner that the order dated 30-5-1966 is final and until and unless the decree- holder takes proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure, he cannot seek execution of his decree. I am unable to sustain this contention. The order dated 30-5-1966 was really meant to debar the decree- holder only from seeking police and without first having resort to proceedings under O. XXI Rules 97,98 and 99 of the Code The decree- holder did not consider it proper to pursue the remedy by seeking police aid and allowed those execution proceedings to lapse. That order could not possibly have been intended to completely debar the decree-holder for all future times from executing his decree in the normal way without taking proceedings under O. XXI, Rr. 97, 98 and 99 of the Code and nothing cogent and convincing has been urged at the bar to persuade me to hold to the contrary. THE order dated 30-5-1966 can neither operate by way of res judicata nor by way of estoppel nor can it, on any other recognised principle, stand in the way of the decree- holder in initiating and pursuing the present execution application. The decision in Barkat Ali v. Fattu, AIR 1928 Lah. THE order dated 30-5-1966 can neither operate by way of res judicata nor by way of estoppel nor can it, on any other recognised principle, stand in the way of the decree- holder in initiating and pursuing the present execution application. The decision in Barkat Ali v. Fattu, AIR 1928 Lah. 216 to which reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not lay down any rule of law which can stand in the way of the decree-holder in prosecuting the present application for execution of the decree in his favour. ( 4 ) SHRI S. N. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has however, contended as a last resort that all that he is interested in it to secure an order staying the petition dispossession pending the enquiry into is objections. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has expressed his anxiety against any further delay in the execution of the decree because, according to him, the decree is already very old, having been made in June, 1956 and each day s delay would not only deny to him the fruits of his decree but he apprehends that delay may render execution of the decree barred by time if it is not fully executed with due promptitude. ( 5 ) AFTER considering the arguments addressed at the bar, I have not the least doubt that the impugned order is not open to challenge in proceedings on revision in this Court. The order sought to be revised has been made in the exercise of the Court s discretion and this Court on revision is ordinarily disinclined to interfere with such orders. At the same time, I do feel that at this stage it would be more appropriate for the Court below to pass suitable orders on the merits in the presence of both sides. Since both the parties are present before me, it would serve the ends of justice if I direct them both to appear in the Court below on 20-12-1966 when the Court would make suitable order on the merits in accordance with law in the presence of the parties. Since both the parties are present before me, it would serve the ends of justice if I direct them both to appear in the Court below on 20-12-1966 when the Court would make suitable order on the merits in accordance with law in the presence of the parties. I have no doubt that the Court below would pay due attention to all the circumstances of the case including the usual notorious difficulties of the decree-holders which in this country face them in executing their decrees and the case which the objector is seeking to put forth in support of his objections. I cannot help observing that this is one of those cases to which the observations of the Privy Council in an old case apply with full justification that the difficulties of decreeholders in India begin when they embark on the thorny path of execution of their decree. ( 6 ) AS a result of the foregoing discussion this revision falls and is dismissed but I direct the parties to appear in the Court below on 20-12-1966 when the Court would take further proceedings in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The records may immediately be remitted back to the Court below. There would be no order as to costs of this revision.