- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 12-1-2001 passed by the IInd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh in Execution Case No. 1 of 2001, whereby the application 24 K 1 filed by the judgment debtor was rejected by the executing Court. The facts in brief, which are necessary for the decision of this revision, are that the opposite party filed an application on 26-9-2000, which was supported by an affidavit of Vineet Sharma, which reveals the fact that the Summary Suit No. 3059 of 1996 has been filed against the revisionist-applicant for the money decree passed by Bombay High Court. The said suit was ultimately decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,52,74,256=71. The property in the suit was situated within the jurisdiction of District Aligarh in the State of U. P. and the Bombay High Court passed the said money decree dated 18-6-1998. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order, the decree dated 18-6-1998 was transmitted for execution to the District Judge, Aligarh by the Bombay High Court, which has been numbered as Execution Case No. 1 of 2001 and a stated above in the said execution application, the Application 24 K-1 was filed, which has been rejected against which the present revision has been filed.
(2.) THE Application 24 K-1 was an application, which was filed during the execution proceedings, in which an objection was filed that when the said application was taken up for hearing, the said Application 24 K-1 was filed by an Advocate of Mathura, whereas at Aligarh Sri J. C. Maheshwari was appearing for the judgment debtor. J. C. Maheshwari, Advocate has been appearing continuously on behalf of the judgment debtor and the Application 24 K-1 was filed through an Advocate of Mathura District only to delay in the execution of the decree. THE only ground in the present revision has been taken is that the Application 24 K-1 has been rejected without hearing the judgment debtor. A perusal of Application 24 K-1 would make it clear that by the said application there is some typographical mistake crept in the execution application, which was sought to be corrected. No correction or amendment is sought in the decree, which has been transmitted for execution and for which the Execution Case No. 1 of 2001 has been registered. From the perusal of the said application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it is abundantly clear that the applicants-revisionists have miserably failed to demonstrate that any injustice is going to cause to him. For the reasons that the application has been rejected even assuming that without affording an opportunity to the Counsel who, according to the case of the applicants- revisionists, belongs to District Mathura, but it is not disputed that the Counsel who was conducting the case on behalf of the judgment debtor before the executing Court was present when the application was heard and decided. In this view of the matter, since no injustice has been caused to the revisionists and learned Counsel for the revisionists was present but refused to argue the matter, the learned revisionists' Counsel has failed to demonstrate that any of the clause of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it is amended in State of U. P. or attracted, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This revision deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. In view of what has been stated above, this revision is dismissed. The interim order/orders, if any stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Revision dismissed. .;