IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.377 of 2006 Rajeshwar Prasad Bhagat Versus Pawan Kumar Bhagat & Ors ----------- 18. 13.10.2011 In view of the order dated 19.11.2010, the competency of this civil revision application, in absence of opposite party no.2 against whom it had stood rejected, is to be considered at the time of admission of this revision application. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos.1, 3 and 5. By the impugned order dated 23.01.2006, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of his petition filed under Order 22 Rule 97 and Section 101 C.P.C. There is no dispute that the opposite party nos. 1 to 5 herein have been the plaintiffs/decree holders. The petitioner has resisted the execution proceeding by filing the aforesaid petition against the plaintiff/decree holders and it is not the case of the petitioner that he had made separate claims against the separate plaintiff/decree holders. In view of this legal position, the dismissal of 2 this revision application as against the opposite party no.2 shall have the effect of making the entire revision application incompetent because proceeding further in the matter may result in inconsistent and conflicting orders as the impugned order dated 23.01.2006 has attained finality with regard to the opposite party no.2. In view of foregoing reasons, this civil revision application is dismissed as incompetent. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)