CRP 284/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B D AGARWAL This revision application has been filed by the Judgment-debtors, challenging th e order dated 11.07.2011, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, in Misc Case No. 526 of 2011, arising out of Title Execution Case No. 32 of 2010. Heard Sri R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P Medhi, learned counsel for the respondents. From the impugned order and other documents annexed with the rev ision application as well as from the statement of the learned counsel for the p etitioners, it appears that the petitioners are the Judgment-debtors of a decree passed in Title Suit No. 188 of 2004. The Judgment in the suit was passed on 17 .09.2010. Thereafter, the Judgment-Debtors filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 1 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for setting aside the Judgment and Dec ree dated 17.09.2010. The prayer was turned out vide order dated 09.05.2011, hol ding that the Judgment was not an exparte one. Against the order dated 09.05.2011, the defendants/Judgment-debt ors preferred Misc Appeal No. 13 of 2011, in the Court of Civil Judge No. 2, Guw ahati. The appellate Court also did not interfere in the order dated 09.05.2011. After dismissal of the appeal the Judgment-debtors filed a petit ion under Order 47 Rule 1 (a) CPC, praying for reviewing the order dated 07.05.2 011 (sic-09.05.2011). This petition has been dismissed by the impugned order. Th e learned Munsiff has held that since the order dated 09.05.2011 was affirmed by the appellate Court, there was no scope for reviewing the Judgment and Order da ted 09.05.2011. In my considered opinion, the learned Munsiff has taken a correc t approach. In other words, the learned Munsiff had no jurisdiction to review hi s own order as the same had been upheld by the appellate Court. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the revision applicatio n and the same is accordingly dismissed.