P.S. Patalia, J. - (1.) A perusal of the orders of the Courts below would show that it was established that the possession had been taken by the respondent-decree holder of the property on the basis of the execution of the decree. The possession was not taken forcibly or illegally by the respondent. The warrants of possession was issued in execution of decree and pursuant thereto possession was delivered to the decree holder. The objection petition filed against delivery of possession was dismissed. Thereafter, the appeals filed against the said order, were also dismissed. The petitioner did not even produce any of orders passed by the appellate Court and his General Power if Attorney stated that he was not aware of the facts of the case. In this situation following finding was recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar:- "17 The possession has been admittedly delivered to the respondents in execution of the decree and by the Court officials. So, the respondents have not taken possession of the property forcibly and illegally and the objector - appellant has failed to show as to how he is entitled for the restoration of the possession when the same is proved to be a part of Khasra No. 1749 and his claim is with regard to Khasra No. 1750. The appellant himself, claims that he is entitled to possession of the same and he has also filed objections against the delivery of possession in execution of the decree dated 30.12.74. He has failed to show that he has any concern with khasra No. 1749. So, even if he is not bound by the judgment and decree dated 30.12.74, so he has not been dispossessed in the execution of the said decree. So, all these issues are held rightly by the Id. Lower Court against the object - appellant and in favour of the decree holders - respondents. The finding of the Id. Trial Court on all these issues are upheld. Issue No. 4. 18. The appellant has filed to place on file any order of the competent Court that he has any concern with Khasra No. 1749 as the possession was delivered to the respondents of Khasra No. 1749 in execution of the judgment and decree dated 30.12.1974. The objector - appellant is not a party and the judgment and decree has not been set aside or no order 4 has been passed in his favour. So, application under Order 21 Rule 99 read with Sections 144 and 151 Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable. The findings of this issue are also upheld." Learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised any meaningful argument to assail these findings recorded by the Courts below. There is no merit in the civil revision and the same is accordingly, dismissed. ;