JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal by Nathu Ram arises out of execution proceedings. Shambhu Dayal, respondent had filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff, Alwar, against Chet Ram, who is now dead and is represented by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Chand Ram, Nanak Ram and Kishan Lal, for ejectment from a shop situated in Nala-nio-ki Gali Alwar. 2. On this suit, Shambhu Dayal obtained a compromise decree for eviction on August 3, 1965 against Chet Ram, defendant. On April 20, 1967, Shambhu Dayal filed an application for execution of the decree and impleaded Nathu Ram as co-judgment-debtor. It was pleaded that after the decree, Shambhu Dayal sublet the shop to Nathu Ram. Chet Ram as well as Nathu Ram contested the execution application. Chet Ram alleged that he had already given vacant possession of the shop to Shambhu Dayal. Nathu Ram alleged that on vacating the shop by Chet Ram, the shop was let out to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and a rent note to that effect was also executed by him in favour of Shambhu Dayal on January 10, 1966. In other words, Nathu Ram pleaded that he was occupying the shop in his own right as a direct tenant of Shambhu Dayal and not as a sub-tenant of Chet Ram. 3. The executing Court framed the following issues:- "(1) Whether Chet Ram, in satisfaction of the decree, handed over vacant possession of the disputed shop to the decree-holder ? (2) Whether the objector (Nathu Ram) is in possession of the disputed shop as main tenant on behalf of Shambhu Dayal or as sub-tenant on behalf of Chet Ram ?" It appears that these issues were decided against the decree-holder and it was held that Nathu Ram was a direct tenant of Shambhu Dayal and therefore he was not liable to be evicted from the disputed shop in execution of the decree. The executing Court, accordingly, dismissed the execution petition. 4. Dissatisfied with the said order, Shambhu Dayal preferred an appeal to the Additional District Judge Alwar. 5. The executing Court, accordingly, dismissed the execution petition. 4. Dissatisfied with the said order, Shambhu Dayal preferred an appeal to the Additional District Judge Alwar. 5. The learned Additional District Judge, Alwar held that the objection filed by Nathu Ram did not fall within the purview of Section 47 C.P.C. He did not give any specific finding on the question whether the decree was satisfied by handing over vacant possession of the suit shop by Chet Ram to Shambhu Dayal. He also held that the objection of Nathu Ram was premature inasmuch as no occasion had arisen in making investigation under Order 21 Rule 97 or under Order 21 Rule 100 C.P.C. The operative portion of his order runs as under:- "I, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of learned Munsiff Alwar, dated 14-8-70 and remand the execution case to the Court of Munsiff Alwar with the direction that the learned Munsiff Alwar will proceed with the execution in accordance with law. The decree holder will be entitled to obtain writ a with of delivery of possession of the shop in question as against Chet Ram judgment debtor and it will be open to the decree holder to get the writ of delivery of possession executed in the manner provided by Order 21 Rule 35(1) C.P.C. If the decree holder is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the shop in question, it will be open to him to make an application to the executing Court under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C., it will be open to the executing Court to adjudicate the claims of the parties in accordance with law. The appellant will get costs of this appeal from Nathu Ram respondent No. 1." It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by Nathu Ram. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 7. It is admitted fact that Nathu Ram was not a party to the decree passed in the suit filed by Shambhu Dayal against Chet Ram. According to the learned Additional District Judge, the objection petition filed by Nathu Ram was premature as well as it did not fall within the purview of Section 47 C.P.C. The correctness of the above finding of the learned Additional District Judge is not challenged before me. According to the learned Additional District Judge, the objection petition filed by Nathu Ram was premature as well as it did not fall within the purview of Section 47 C.P.C. The correctness of the above finding of the learned Additional District Judge is not challenged before me. In this view of the matter, no appeal lay before the learned Additional District Judge against Nathu Ram. 8. It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for respondents decree holder that the learned Additional District Judge ought to have decided issue No. 1 relating to the question as to the satisfaction of the decree by Chet Ram. The contention is well founded. It appears that the learned Additional District Judge did not give any clear finding on issued No. 1 which related to the question of satisfaction of the decree by Chet Ram. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the case be remanded to the lower appellate Court for deciding issue No. 1 and give a clear finding whether Chet Ram had satisfied the decree by handing over vacant possession of the disputed shop to Shambhu Dayal. 9. I allow the appeal and while maintaining the order of dismissal of the execution petition passed by the executing Court against Nathu Ram, remand the case back to the learned Additional District Judge with a direction to decide issue No. 1 relating to the satisfaction of the decree by Chet Ram and then dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own cost in this appeal.Appeal allowed. *******