IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.352 of 2009 Rajendra Choudhary & Ors Versus Bachu Prasad & Anr ---------------------------------- 05. 14.12.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order the learned court below has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. By filing the aforesaid petition in the execution preceding the petitioners have claimed independent right, title and interest as purchaser of the part of the suit land. The learned court below, after considering the materials on records as well as the previous order passed in the same proceeding, has come to hold that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the pendency of an appeal or second appeal against the judgment and decree under execution will not be a bar to the maintainability of the petition under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C.. It has been urged by the learned counsel that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. has been inserted for adjudicating the right, title and interest of 2 the persons stranger to the decree and therefore the filing of the appeal or second appeal cannot be a factor relevant for consideration of such objection. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has submitted that the petitioners are purchasers from the judgment debtor Sanichar Mahto (since deceased and substituted by his wife Kamla Devi) and after the preparation of the final decree the Execution Case No.01/89 was levied and in that execution case these petitioners filed their objection and by order dated 04.07.91 the court, after hearing the parties, had been pleased to reject the objection of the petitioners. The order dated 04.07.91 passed in the Execution Case No.01/89 has been brought on record on behalf of the opposite parties by annexing the same to their interlocutory application bearing I.A.No. 6078/10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the objection by the petitioners again in the execution case is not maintainable and the impugned order passed by the court below is legal and valid. From the perusal of the impugned order as 3 well as after considering the submissions of the parties it appears that the court below has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has recorded that the decree passed in T.S.No.227/74 was amended and Plot No.400 have been brought into decree by way of amendment and the petitioners’ objection has already been adjudicated and negatived as mentioned above by order dated 04.07.91 in Execution Case No. 01/89. There appears to be no error or jurisdiction or illegality in the impugned order. This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)