IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.766 of 2008 MD. MURTAZA Versus SHANTI DEVI & ORS ----------- 4 21.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. A 1993 decree being executed in the year, 2008 is not acceptable to the petitioner/judgment debtor who says that records should have been called for and only after production of the record the decree could have been executed. Counsel for the petitioner, however, could not justify as to why the record should have been called for nor is he even aware of the nature of the objection. The whole purpose of this Civil Revision application thus was again to delay the execution a 15 years old decree. In that view of the matter this Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly this Civil Revision application is dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)