IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1758 of 2008 1. Smt.Sunaina Sinha ,Wife of Sri Harinath Sinha. 2.Harinath Sinha, Son of Late Ganga Prasad Singh. Both R/o Mohalla- Gobarshahi, P.S.-Sadar in the town and District of Muzaffarpur. -----(Defendant-Judgment Debtor-Opp.Parties--Petitioners. Versus 1.Jaleshwar Prasad Singh ,Son of Late Jayanti Prasad Singh. 2.Smt. Sunaina Devi, Wife of Sri Jaleshwar Prasad Singh. 3.Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh, Son of Sri Jaleshwar Prasad Singh. 4.Prem Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Jaleshwar Prasad Singh. --------(Plaintiff)-Decree Holder-Petitioners)—Opp.Parties. ----------- 7. 29.08.2011 Heard Mr.S. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. K.N. Diwakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. With the consent of the parties this civil revision application has been heard and disposed of at this stage. The learned senior counsel Mr. S. Mazumdar, at the threshold has submitted that the execution case in the court below is not maintainable and if his prayer would have been allowed the execution case would have been dismissed and as such he has filed this civil revision 2 application against the impugned order which is maintainable. He has declined to make prayer for converting this revision application into an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order dated 19.08.2008 passed by Sub Judge, Muzaffarpur in Execution Case No. 01 of 2002 the court below has issued a direction that the order dated 12.09.2002 passed in the execution case be carried out as the same has been affirmed by the High Court in C.R.No.1733/2002. There is no dispute that there had been a Title Suit No. 143/1995 for specific performance of contract and the said suit was decreed on 17.04.2011 and the relief sought by the plaintiff for getting the sale deed executed by the defendant was granted. The relevant portion of the said decree has been quoted in the impugned order. The Execution Case No. 01/02 has been filed by the decree holder for the execution of the said decree and on 12.09.2002 the Executing Court passed the order for execution of the decree in accordance with the relief claimed by the decree holder in his petition dated 22.03.2002. However it appears that subsequently by order dated 03.10.2002 the said order was recalled by the 3 Executing Court .This recall order dated 03.10.2002 was challenged by filing C.R.No.1733/2002 before this Court by the decree holder. The final order passed in the revision application i.e. C.R.No.1733/2002 has been annexed with this civil revision application by way of Annexure-6. By the said order, this Court has allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated 03.10.2002 by which the order dated 12.09.2002 was recalled. The order by this Court in the revision application has been passed after fully hearing the rival contentions of the decree holder and the judgment debtor. In view of the revival of the order dated 12.09.2002 the learned court below has by the impugned order issued direction for the compliance of the said order dated 12.09.2002. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the execution case is not maintainable as the decree holder wants the registration on the basis of old document. But the perusal of the impugned order does not reveal that any such objection has been raised and decided by the Executing Court below or any such direction has been issued. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order by the Executing Court directing for 4 compliance of his earlier order dated 12.09.2002. The learned counsel for the opposite party has raised preliminary objection regarding the bar contained in proviso to Section 115 C.P.C. The learned counsel for the opposite party has further submitted that he has filed a supplementary counter affidavit which shows that the execution proceeding has become complete and the sale deed has been executed and as such the revision application has become infructuous. No rejoinder to this statement has been filed by the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, this revision application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)