JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under S. 115, CPC is directed against the order dated 6-2-1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abu Road whereby the preliminary objections raised by the decree-holder-petitioner against the application dated 15-3-1991 moved by the judgment-debtors-non-petitioners were rejected. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition briefly stated are that decree-holder-petitioner owns Hotel Saurashtra at Shivaji Marg, Mount Abu. He gave the aforesaid Hotel on contract basis to judgment-debtor-non-petitioner Nanji Bhai for a period of 11 months. However, the said contract was renewed from time to time. It is alleged that the suit premises required urgent repairs and, therefore, the decree-holder-petitioner asked Nanji Bhai to vacate the same so that necessary repairs could be carried out but the latter did not agree. 3. The judgment-debtors-non-petitioners, therefore, filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the decree-holder-petitioner in the Court of the learned Munsif, Abu Road, inter alia seeking directions against the decree-holder-petitioner that he may be restrained from evicting the judgment-debtor-non-petitioner from the suit premises except in accordance with the law. However, during the pendency of the above suit, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, in the following terms: " 29&4&87 oknhx.k o izfroknh mi0A i{kdkjku us jkthukek is'k fd;kA jkthukek rLnhd fd;kA jkthukek ds vuqlkj izfroknh dks :c: vnkyr :0 15]000@& vnk dj jlhn lR;kfir dhA jkthukekuqlkj cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknh fMdzh ikfjr dh tkrh gS fd oknhx.k fookfnr ifjlj fnukad 31&3&88 rd yht esa j[ksaxs ftldk fdjk;k vnk fd;k x;k gS blds ckn os [kkyh dCtk izfroknh dks fookfnr ifjlj dk lkSai nsaxsA oknhx.k izfroknh dh lgefr ls iqu% fookfnr ifjlj yht esa ys ldsaxsA bl nkSjku izfroknh oknhx.k ds dCts esa gLr{ksi ugha djsxkA o ejEer dk dk;Z oknh dh lqfo/kkuqlkj djsxkA [kpkZ nkok viuk viuk cgu djsaxsA vkns'k lquk;k x;kA lgh 29&4&87 eqaflQ ,oa U;kf;d eftLV~sV] izFke oxZ] vkcw jksM " 4. The above compromise was also attested by the learned Munsif, Abu Road and accordingly, a compromise decree comprising the above terms was passed in favour of the decree-holder-judgment-debtor on 29-4-1987. 5. However, when in pursuance of the aforesaid decree, the judgment-debtors-non-petitioners did not choose to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the decree-holder petitioner applied for execution of the above decree in the Civil Court. 5. However, when in pursuance of the aforesaid decree, the judgment-debtors-non-petitioners did not choose to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the decree-holder petitioner applied for execution of the above decree in the Civil Court. The execution proceedings were registered on 19-7-1988 and a warrant for possession was issued. Ultimately, the decree was executed and possession of the suit premises was handed over to the decree-holder-petitioner. 6. After the delivery of the possession of the suit premises to the decree-holder-petitioner, the judgment-debtor-non-petitioner No. 2 Bharat Kumar moved an application under S. 151 read with S. 144 and 0.47, CPC, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 41 of 1988. Another application for restoration of the possession was moved by the legal representative No. 1 of judgment-debtor-non-petitioner No. 1 Nanji Bhai in execution case No. 20 of 1988. It was inter alia alleged in the aforesaid applications that the decree dated 29-4-1987 passed in Suit No. 54 of 1987 was invalid and consequently, the execution proceedings taken in pursuance thereof were also invalid. 7. It was contended that the Court concerned had no jurisdiction to pass the decree for handing over the possession in a suit filed for permanent injunction. A decree for eviction can only be passed on the grounds set out in S. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act). The learned trial Court vide its order dated 25-7-1989 dismissed the application moved (by) judgment-debtors. 8. Being dissatisfied with the above order dated 25-7-1989, the judgment-debtors-non-petitioners preferred a revision petition (No. 407 of 1989) before this Court and after hearing both the parties, this Court held that the Court below acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the application moved by the judgment-debtor-non-petitioners. However, this Court declined to go into the question whether the suit challenging the validity of the compromise and the decree passed thereon was maintainable or not. The operative portion of the above order dated 23-1-1991 passed by this Court in the above revision petition runs as under: "I need not go into the question whether the suit challenging the validity of the compromise and the decree passed thereon was maintainable or not. The operative portion of the above order dated 23-1-1991 passed by this Court in the above revision petition runs as under: "I need not go into the question whether the suit challenging the validity of the compromise and the decree passed thereon was maintainable or not. What I am concerned with is whether the Court below in the instant case acted illegally and with material irregularity as well as without jurisdiction in rejecting the application under S. 151 of the Code. Since I have found that Court below to have acted without jurisdiction, my view is that this revision petition is entitled to succeed. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the Court below dated July 25,1989 is set aside." 9. After the decision of this Court in the above revision petition, the judgment-debtors-non-petitioner moved an application before the learned Munsif, Abu Road claiming therein the possession of the disputed property. The above application was misconceived as the judgment-debtors did not correctly understand the ratio of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. The petitioner-decree-holder raised several objections regarding maintainability of the above application. It was submitted that the application was not signed by any of the judgment-debtors and further, it was not supported by any affidavit. In the said application, although the applicant had mentioned Misc. Case No. 41 of 1988 and Execution Case No. 20 of 1988 but it was not clarified that as to in which matter, the applicant was claiming relief. According to the decree-holder-petitioner, the execution case No. 20 of 1988 has already been decided and the said application simply cannot be heard without taking the execution case No. 20 of 1988 to its original stage. 10. It was specifically pointed out that this court in its order dated 20-1-1991 has not directed to take the execution case No. 20 of 1988 against to its original stage and to hear the same afresh. It was also stated that the application was moved by Shri Ambalal Singhal, Advocate on behalf of the judgment-debtor-non-petitioner is not maintainable inasmuch as the revision petition was filed before this court against the order passed in Execution case No. 20 of 1988 and without such a direction, the executing Court was not competent to start hearing afresh in the execution case No. 20 of 1988. 11. 11. It was also contended that Shri Ambalal Singhal moved the application on behalf of both the judgment-debtors but he did not represent Smt. Maina Devi and hence, the application moved by Shri Ambalal Singhal, Advocate was without proper authority and the learned trial Court ought to have declined to act upon such an application. It was submitted that two applications were already pending before the executing court one moved by Bharat Kumar and the another moved by Smt. Maina Devi. The application moved by Shri Ambalal could not have been in respect of two applications which were pending before the trial Court. It was against R. 24 of the General Rules (Civil) 1986. The trial Court even did not ask Shri Ambalal Singhal to specify in which case the above application was moved. For clarifying this important aspect of the matter, the learned trial court ought to have declined to act upon the above application. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the judgment-debtor-non-petitioners has supported the impugned order. 13. I have carefully considered the above rival submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record of the case as also the impugned order. 14. In my opinion, the learned trial Court has correctly held that Shri Ambalal Singhal. Advocate had the authority to represent Bharat Kumar as his Vakalatnama was filed in the executing Court on 9-8-1988 and hence, Shri Ambalal Singhal had authority to file the application on behalf of Bharatkumar on 15-3-1991. It may be appreciated that the order passed by this Court must be correctly interpreted. The revision petition was allowed and the order of the trial Court dated 25-7-1989 was set aside. The natural corollary of this order is that since the order of the executing Court dismissing the objections filed by the judgment-debtors-non-petitioners was set aside, it was obligatory for the learned trial Court to have proceeded with the objections filed by the judgment-debtor in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. When the impugned order of the trial Court was set aside, the application filed by the judgment-debtors shall be deemed to be subsist. Hence, the objection filed by the decree-holder-judgment-debtors were devoid of force. When the impugned order of the trial Court was set aside, the application filed by the judgment-debtors shall be deemed to be subsist. Hence, the objection filed by the decree-holder-judgment-debtors were devoid of force. Even for the sake of arguments, it is considered that Shri Ambalal Singhal did not represent Smt. Maina Devi, he represented the other judgment-debtor Bharat Kumar and his application for the delivery of the possession was maintainable. 15. In the view of the matter, I hold that the learned trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 6-2-1996. 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this revision petition has got no force and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******