' Granted subject to just all exceptions.
2. The revision application under section 115, C.P.C. Is filed against the order of 1st. Senior Civil Judge dated 22-2-1987, whereby the learned Judge refused to grant an application under section 151, C.P.C. Filed by the applicant for delivery of the possession of Delite Cinema which /was attached before judgment in Suit No,259 of 1965. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that Delite Cinema joinly belong to the applicant and respondent No,1 which was attached before judgment in Suit No,259 of 1965 in which the applicant claimed a sum of Rs,24,000 against respondent No,1. It is further contended that after the attachment, on an application moved by the Intervenor Qasim, who is now represented by respondents 2 to 8, the possession of Cinema was given by the trial Court to the said intervenor Qasim upon furnishing the security to the extent of the decretal amount. The Suit was ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff/applicant and after decree of the suit the plaintiff has applied for handing over possession of the Cinema on the ground that it belong to the applicant and respondent No,1. The application filed by the applicant before the Trial Court was wholly misconcieved as the Suit No,259 of 1975 instituted by the applicant was a simple Money Suiti in which the question of delivery of any immovable property was not at all involved. The fact that Delite Cinema was attached pending judgment in the .Suit could not be a ground for delivery of its possession to , the applicant/plaintiff upon a decree having been passed in the sum of Rs,24.000 in a the Civil Suit. As the above Cinema was attached before judgment in Suit No,259 of 1965, the plaintiff could only proceed for realisation of the amount against the said property as an attached property in the Suit. There was no question of delivery of prossession of the attached property to the plaintiff/applicant in execution of the decree.