IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2273 of 2007 1. Upendranath Pandey @ Upendra Pandey 2. Tuna Pandey 3. Santosh Pandey 4. Renu Pandey @ Renu Devi - Petitioners no.1 to 4 sons and daughter of late Nageshwar pandey @ Chandeshwar Pandey 5. Sidheshwar Pandey son of Jamuna Pandey - All residents of Dhanauti Sultanpur PO Sultanpur, PS Derni, District Saran....Judgment-Debtors/Petitioners Versus 1. Pashupati Nath Pandey son of Jugeshwar Pandey 2. Dharmnath Pandey son of late Gaya Pandey 3. Chandradeo Pandey son of late Bhuneshwari Pandey - All residents of Dhanauti Sultanpur PO Sultanpur PS Derni, District Saran, and Opposite Party no.1 presently resident of C/O Jugeshwar Pandey behind CDA building, Mohalla Laljee Tola, PO GPO Patna, PS Kotwali, District Patna....Decree-Holders/Opp.Parties ----------- 04- 18/10/2011 Heard Mr. Bimlendu Mishra for the petitioners. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the judgment-debtors of Execution Case no.7/91 (Pashupati Nath Pandey vs. Upendra Nath Pandey @ Upendra Pandey), and challenge the order dated 7.9.2007, passed by the learned Munsif 2nd, Chapra, Saran, whereby their application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The decree-holders had instituted Title Suit no.89/82 for declaration of their right, title and interest for 2 redemption of conditional sale deed with respect to suit land which was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 12.3.84 by learned civil court at Chapra. The judgment- debtors-defendants who are the petitioners before me did not challenge the judgment and decree which attained finality. The decree-holders levied execution which was taken to its logical conclusion, the judgment and decree were executed and delivery of possession to the decree- holders was confirmed. The judgment-debtors (the petitioners herein) filed an application under Section 47 of the Code which has been rejected on the aforesaid ground. We entirely agree with the view taken by the learned execution court. With this has to be added the legal position that the judgment-debtors raised objections pointed out in their application under Section 47 of the Code which is tantamount to going behind the decree. In other words, the judgment-debtors by their application under Section 47 of the Code had in substance challenged the validity of the judgment and decree itself which is impermissible in execution proceedings. Thirdly, the judgment-debtors did not challenge the judgment and decree in the suit by preferring appeal, and has attained finality. It is evident that 3 the application under Section 47 was worse than a delaying tactics, was gross abuse of the process of the court, and the present civil revision application is equally, if not more, a gross abuse of the process of the court. It is a frivolous application. It is accordingly dismissed. mrl ( S K Katriar, J. )