Short Note : 1. The only question is whether the decree under execution is in-executable because of any ambiguity in the description of accommodation from which the appellant has to be evicted. In my opinion, the Court below have rightly rejected the judgment-debtor'. objection. 2. Held: There is no dispute before me that the appellant-judgment-debtor was the tenant of the respondents-decree holders only in one accommodation In Sarafa Chowk, Bhopal ; that the suit for eviction which led to the passing of the decree which is being executed related only to that accommodation; and that there is no other accommodation in that locality or elsewhere in which the appellant is a tenant of the respondents. In short, there is no dispute that the respondents filed the suit for appellant's eviction from the only accommodation in which appellant was respondents' tenant and that the laid accommodation is situated in Sarafa Chowk, Bhopal. There is also no dispute that this accommodation from which the appellant is to be evicted in execution of the decree has been correctly described in the execution application. It is similarly not in dispute that this very accommodation has also been similarly and correctly described in the map annexed to the plaint and mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint as describing the suit accommodation. These facts alone are sufficient to reject the judgment-debtor's objection on merits. 3. The total foundation of the judgment-debtor's objection is the fact that In paragraph I of the plaint while describing the boundaries of the suit accommodation, the word "North" does not appear and "West" appears twice. It is an obvious error which is, however. of no consequence because after so describing the boundaries in paragraph 1 of the plaint, it is further stated in the very same paragraph that the sketch map annexed to the plaint specifies the suit accommodation which is shown as ABCD in that map in red colour. As earlier stated, this map annexed to the plaint contains no error and description and boundaries of the suit accommodation given therein are the same as specified in the execution application. It is, therefore, obvious that in the plaint itself there was no ambiguity and this is apparent from the fact that the defendant in his written-statement expressly admitted the whole of paragraph 1. It is, therefore, obvious that in the plaint itself there was no ambiguity and this is apparent from the fact that the defendant in his written-statement expressly admitted the whole of paragraph 1. Such an objection at the stage of execution is a clear afterthought and an obvious delaying tactics of the judgment-debtor. There is no merit in this objection and the same was, therefore, rightly rejected by the two Courts below. Appeal dismissed.