IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.519 of 2007 1.Chandrika Missir, Son of Late Kedar Missir, R/o Village- Samanpur Bado, Pargana Arwal, P.S.- Kinjar, District- Arwal. --- ------------Petitioner/Decree Holder in the Execution Case. Versus 1.Sri Mohan Missir ,Son of Late Haribans Missir. 2. Suresh Missir, Son of Late Haribans Missir. 3.Awadhesh Missir, Son of Late Haribans Missir. 4.Udit Narayan Missir@ Akhileshwar Missir, Son of Jagdish Narayan Missir. 5.Nand Kishore Missir, Son of Jagdish Narayan Missir. 6.Fadhey Missir, Son of Jagdish Narayan Missir. 7.Baban Missir, Son of Jagdish Narayan Missir. 8.Anirudh Missir, Son of Late Kaltu Missir. 9.Ram Avtar Missir, Son of Late Kaltu Missir. 10.Prasuram Missir, Son of Ugan Missir. 11.Hardeo Missir, Son of Ram Ekwal Missir. 12.Ramiee Maharaj, Son of Jageshwar Maharaj. 13. Navdeep Maharaj, Son of Punit Maharaj. 14.Surajdeo Singh, Son of Parmeshwar Singh. 15.Shanti Devi, D/o Ram Prasad Missir. 16. Kanti Devi, D/o Ram Prasad Missir. 17.Ramchandra Missir, Son of Late Deomani Missir. All are residents of Village- Samanpur Bado, Pargana Arwal, P.S.- Kinjar, District- Arwal. -Opposite Parties/ Judgement Debtors in the Execution Case. ----------- 10. 19.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite 2 party nos. 1 to 7. This civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 08.12.2006 by which the Munsif , Jehanabad has dismissed the Execution Case No. 06 of 2004 and Execution Case No. 07 of 2004 on the ground that both the cases have no merit. It is not in dispute that there was Title Suit No. 65 of 1959 filed by the petitioners, who were the plaintiffs in that suit, for declaration of title and recovery of possession as well as permanent injunction .The aforesaid suit was decreed on 11.04.1962 and Decree Holders (petitioners) filed Execution Case No. 31 of 1964 for execution of the said decree. It is also not in dispute that this Execution Case No. 31 of 1964 was subsequently dismissed in default by order dated 09.01.1975. In the meantime there was another Title Suit No. 87 of 1964 filed by the defendants of the aforesaid Title Suit No. 65 of 1959, challenging the decree passed therein as not binding upon them. However this later suit was dismissed on 28.05.1969 with cost after hearing the parties. The appeal filed against this decree of dismissal however had abated for non substitution and the matter traveled up to this court in the abatement matter. 3 Thereafter the Decree Holders (Petitioners) filed a petition for restoration of the Execution Case which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 05 of 2002 but the same was dismissed on 17.01.2003. The Decree Holders (Petitioners) then filed Execution Case No. 06 of 2004 and Execution Case No. 07 of 2004. It appears that the Execution Case No. 06 of 2004 has been filed for executing the decree in Title Suit No. 87 of 1964(which was dismissed but the cost of Rs. 175.61 Paisa was granted to the petitioners who were defendants in that suit) and Execution Case No. 07 of 2004 had been filed for executing the decree passed in Title Suit No. 65 of 1959. By the impugned order , the learned Munsif has dismissed both the Execution Cases as lacking merits and has recorded the finding that there is no reasonable explanation for condoning the delay in filing Execution Case No. 06 of 2004 and 07 of 2004. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that in view of filing of subsequent Title Suit No. 87 of 1964 challenging the decree passed in earlier Title Suit No. 65 of 1959, the petitioners carried the impression that any step for execution of the decree now was to be taken only after the disposal of the later suit. His 4 submission is that due to this bona fide impression the petitioners/ decree holders did not take any step either for restoration of the previously filed execution case or filing fresh execution case and therefore there is valid explanation for the delay which the court below has failed to appreciate. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 to 7 however contended that this revision application is confined to only one execution case i.e. Execution Case No. 06 of 2004 and no revision application has been filed against the dismissal of the another Execution Case No. 07 of 2004. He has further submitted that Execution case No. 06 of 2004 had been filed for execution of the decree passed in later suit filed by these opposite parties i.e. Title Suit No. 84 of 1964. He has further submitted that there has been no valid explanation for the delay in filing the execution Cases and the court below has committed no error in passing the impugned order. From the order dated 27.08.2010 of this civil revision application, it appears that this civil revision application has already stood dismissed as against opposite party nos. 9, 10, 11 to 17. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has very fairly stated that the interest of the 5 opposite parties already on record and those opposite parties against whom this revision application has stood dismissed are the same and therefore in view of the dismissal of this civil revision application against the opposite parties aforesaid this civil revision application has become incompetent against the present opposite parties on record. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances as aforementioned, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The learned court below has rightly come to the conclusion that there has been no valid explanation for the delay in filing the execution cases. The petitioner has failed to give satisfactory explanation and establish sufficient cause in not filing a restoration petition earlier or fresh execution cases. There is thus no merit in this revision application which is, accordingly, dismissed. After this order had been dictated, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made a prayer to take notice of his submission that M.J.c.No.3589 of 2010 has been filed for restoration of this civil revision application against opposite party nos. 9, 10,11 to 17 and the same will now become infructuous after the dismissal of this 6 revision application on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner may place his submission in MJC No. 3589 of 2010. Nitesh (V. Nath, J.)