JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - The petitioners have filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated November 10, 1993 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Faridabad. 2. The decree holders (petitioners herein) had filed a suit on the allegations that they had purchased the suit land from one Ram Chander, the previous owner, vide registered sale deed dated February 4, 1983 and thereafter, they constructed sheds and chabutra on the same in March, 1983. Notice dated January 6, 1986 was received by them from the respondents threatening to demolish the front wall of the shed. The plaintiffs claimed that since the shed was constructed much prior to the period of six months, therefore, it could not have been demolished in view of the provisions of Section 208 of the Haryana Municipal Act. When the defendants refused to withdraw the notice, the suit was filed. 3. In the aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs were held to be in possession of the suit land. However, the suit was dismissed since they could not prove that the construction was completed by them more than six months prior to the issuance of the notice. An appeal was filed by the decree holders. The learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated December 3, 1990 passed a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the decree holders. It was held that the construction on the land in question was more than six months old and therefore, the defendants had no right to demolish the same under the provisions of Section 208 of the Haryana Municipal Act. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment, a regular second appeal No. 665 of 1991 was filed, but the same was also dismissed vide order of this Court dated April 24, 1991. However, liberty was granted to the Faridabad Complex by observing that it would always be open to the Faridabad Complex to proceed against the respondents for demolishing the construction, if the same is permissible under any other law except Haryana Municipal Act. 5. Thereafter, the execution proceedings were taken. In the execution proceedings, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. The aforesaid application was decided by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Faridabad vide order dated October 9, 1992, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property. 5. Thereafter, the execution proceedings were taken. In the execution proceedings, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. The aforesaid application was decided by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Faridabad vide order dated October 9, 1992, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid order. The learned District Judge, Faridabad vide order dated November 25, 1992 permitted the decree holders to reconstruct Ahata and the shed without any interference from the defendants. The operative portion of the order dated November 25, 1992 reads as under :- "For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted and apart from maintaining the status quo, the plaintiffs are permitted to reconstruct the Ahata and the shed without any interference from the defendants. It is made clear that since there was no decree regarding the disputed wall, the defendants will be at liberty to demolish the same if not already demolished. It is further made clear that in terms of the order of the Honble High Court, the defendants can restrain the plaintiffs from reconstructing the Ahata and the shed if permissible in any other law except the Haryana Municipal Act." 6. Now the decree holders had filed an application before the trial court for granting them the police help in order to implement the order dated November 25, 1992. The aforesaid application had been contested by the judgment debtors. They had maintained that they were not obstructing or preventing the decree holders from raising any construction under the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, but were taking action only under Sections 29 and 30 of the Faridabad Complex Regulation and Development Act, 1971 (for short, the 1971 Act). On the basis of the stand taken by the defendants, judgment debtors, the learned trial Court vide order dated November 10, 1993 refused to grant the police help to the decree holders. The prayer was rejected. 7. I have heard Shri I.K. Mehta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. 8. On the basis of the stand taken by the defendants, judgment debtors, the learned trial Court vide order dated November 10, 1993 refused to grant the police help to the decree holders. The prayer was rejected. 7. I have heard Shri I.K. Mehta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. 8. It is apparent from the perusal of the order dated November 25, 1992 that although the claim of the plaintiffs, decree holders, with regard to the action taken by the defendants, judgment debtors, under the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act succeeded and it was held that they were not entitled to proceed under the aforesaid Act, but liberty was granted to the said respondents to proceed in accordance with the provisions of any other law, which was available to them. The respondents have now maintainable that they are initiating action under Sections 29 and 30 of the 1971 Act. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the order dated November 25, 1992 could not come to the rescue of the plaintiffs, decide holders, as they were not granted any blanket permission to raise the construction on the land in dispute. No merit. Dismissed. Revision dismissed.