IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 244 of 2007 Lav Kush Kesari, son of late Baijnath Prasad Kesari, resident of Mohalla Sheoganj, P.S. Ara Town, District Bhojpur……...Defendant-Judgment debtor-Petitioner. Versus 1. Subhash Chandra Kesari 2. Shyam Baboo Kesari 3. Anirudd Prasad, all sons of late Baijnath Prasad Kesari, all residents of Mohalla Sheoganj, P.S. Ara Town,District Bhojpur……Plaintiffs-Decree holders-Opposite parties. For the petitioner : None For the opposite parties : Mr. Amar Prakash, Advocate. ----------- 02/ 09.07.2009 This civil revision has been filed by defendant-judgment debtor-petitioner challenging order dated 27.11.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Bhojpur rejected his petition dated 20.09.2006 filed under the provision of section 47 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Execution Case No.01 of 2001. The aforesaid case has arisen out of Title Suit No.105 of 1999, which was filed by the plaintiffs-decree holders-opposite parties for partition of the suit land whereafter four brothers, who were parties to the suit entered into compromise and filed a compromise petition in the suit, which was decreed on compromise in the year 2000 and the said compromise petition was made part of the decree. From the statements of the petitioner made in his civil revision it does not appear that the said decree was ever challenged by any one. However, it transpires that the plaintiffs-decree holders filed Execution Case No.01 of 2001 for getting possession over the 2 share allotted to them in the compromise decree. However, in the said execution case the defendant-judgment debtor filed a petition under the provision of section 47 and Order XXI Rule 97 read with section 151 of the C.P.C., which was dismissed on merit by the executing court on 01.08.2003 after elaborately dealing with all the objections raised by the judgment debtor. It transpires from the impugned order that the defendant-judgment debtor was in habit of filing frivolous petitions to delay the matter and also used dilatory tactics merely with a view to deprive the decree-holder from the fruit of the decree and after more than three years he filed a fresh petition under the provision of section 47 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on similar grounds. Considering the entire matter in detail the learned executing court rejected the said frivolous petition of the defendant-judgment debtor by its impugned order dated 27.11.2006. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the executing court to expedite the proceeding of the execution case and to complete the same expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this court. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)