CRP 421/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners by the present petition have challenged the order dated 17th Sep tember, 2011 passed by the learned Munsiff, No.1, Dhubri in Misc. (J) Execution Case No.22/2000, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondents /opposite parties under Section 144 CPC for restitution of the possession of the disputed property was allowed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said ap plication under Section 144 CPC was filed in the execution proceeding earlier in stituted by the present petitioners being Execution Case No.41/1994, which havin g been disposed of on 15th January, 1995, no order could have been passed by the learned Court below in the said application filed in the aforesaid Execution Ca se No.41/1994. It appears that the present petitioners filed Title Appeal No.37/1993 before the learned First Appellate Court, wherein an ex-parte decree was obtained on 23rd February, 1994. The said ex-parte decree was put into execution by the present petitioners by filing Execution Proceeding No.41/1994 and the possession of the property was delivered to the present petitioners in execution of the said decre e on 15th January, 1995. The ex-parte decree passed in the said appeal, however , was subsequently set aside on the basis of the application filed by the presen t opposite parties and the said appeal was directed to be heard. The appeal was accordingly heard afresh, which was dismissed on 7th September, 1999. The decr ee, which was obtained by the petitioners, therefore, has been set aside, which necessitated filing of the application under Section 144 CPC, which was register ed and numbered as Misc.(J) Execution Case No.22/2000. It appears from the materials available on the record of the revision petition a s well as the impugned order dated 17th September, 2011 passed by the learned Mu nsiff No.1 that the said application was not filed in the execution proceeding i nstituted by the present petitioners but a separate proceeding has been register ed on the basis of the said application filed under Section 144 CPC. Since the earlier decree has been revised, the learned Court below has rightly passed the order for restitution of the possession under Section 144 CPC, which requires no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.