IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.527 of 2009 Smt.Siya Devi, wife of Sri Shashi Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Krishna Pur, P.S. Amarpur, Dsitrict- Banka --- Petitioner/Petitioner Versus 1. Bhola Kapri, son of Bulli Kapri, resident of Village Lahoriya, Gopalpur, P.S. Rajoun, District-Banka ---- Opposite Ist Party –Decree Holder --- Plaintiff--- Opposite Ist Party. 2. Nand Kishroe Bhagat, son of late Sital Pd. Bhagat 3. Pradeep Kumar Bhagat, son of Sri Nand Kishore Bhagat, both resident of Village-Bhadariya, P.S. Amarpur, District- Banka --- Opposite 2nd party --- Judgment Debtor --- Defendant Ist party --- Opposite 2nd Part. 4. Ganesh Prasad Bhagat, son of Brij Bihari Bhagat, resident of Village-Bhawanipur, P.S. Rajoun, District- Banka 5. Ravi Shankar Bhagat 6. Gyan Shankar Bhagat 7. Dhrub Shankar Bhagat 8. Udai Shankar Bhagat, all sons of late Shiv Pujan Bhagat, all resident of Village-Panjwara, P.S. Barahat, District- Banka --- Opposite 3rd Party/Judgment Debtor/Defendant 2nd party—Opposite 3rd party. ---------------------------------- 3. 23.11.2011 Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Jha for the petitioners, and Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey for opposite party no.1. The objectors of Misc. Case No. 15 of 2008, filed under the provisions of Order 21, Rules 99, 100, 101, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is directed against the order dated 16.1.2009, passed by the learned 2 Sub-Ordinate Judge-I, Banka, in Misc. Case No.15 of 2008, whereby he has rejected the same. We have perused the materials on the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that Title Suit No. 73 of 1985 was instituted for specific performance of contract which was decreed. No appeal was filed against the same, and the judgment of the learned trial court attained finality. The decree-holder levied execution bearing Execution Case No. 2 of 2001. The judgment and decree were executed and delivery of possession was effected in favour of the decree- holder. It thus appears to us that the objectors are only trying to harass the decree-holder by filing objections under Order 21. In deed the civil revision application has become infructuous. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)