1. The Judgment of the lower appellate Court dismissing the suit is baaed on the view that when the present suit was instituted, the decree in the former suit remained unexecuted and that tins plaintiff might have applied for execution of that decree.
2. It seems to us that the decree in the former suit had been executed at the time the present suit was instituted. Under the original decree the plaintiff entered into joint possession and satisfaction of the decree was entered up. She then applied for and obtained an amendment of the decree, without taking steps to have the order recording1 satisfaction of the decree set aside.
3. The amendment of a decree the satisfaction of which had been recorded was a nullity. The state of thing's, therefore, is that in satisfaction of her decree the plaintiff entered into joint possession. She alleges she has been ousted, from her joint possession.
4. The fact that she has been ousted from joint possession (if she has been so ousted) gives her a fresh cause of action in respect of which a fresh suit is maintainable.
5. We must sot aside the decrees of the two lower Courts. The case must be restored to the .District Munsif's file in order that he may dispose of it according to law. Costs will follow the result.