JUDGMENT Mithan Lal, J. - This civil revision filed against an order of the learned District Judge, Varanasi, arises under the following circumstances. 2. The opposite party obtained a decree for arrears of rent against Sri Ragho Upadhya and three others from the appellate court. This decree was put into execution u/s 148 of the Banaras State Tenancy Act (which is akin to Section 168 of the UP Tenancy Act) and then proceedings u/s 149 were taken. These proceedings u/s 149 are akin to Section 170 of the UP Tenancy Act. An order of delivery of possession was passed on March 18, 1953 and actual possession was delivered on July 29, 1953. It may also be stated that after the decree was passed a second appeal was filed in this Court and that second appeal is still pending. 3. After the actual delivery of possession the present objection purporting to be u/s s. 47 and 151 CPC was filed on August 1, 1953. This objection was dismissed by the executing court on October 21, 1953 and thereafter when the matter came in appeal before the learned District Judge, the merger of Banaras State having taken place, abolition of Zamindari in Banaras also became effective from the date of vesting that is, April 1, 1954. After this vesting the District Judge remanded the objection on September 17, 1954 to the executing court to dispose it of in the light of the new law. After remand the objection was allowed by the executing court holding that the objector Petitioner had become an Adhivasi. The decree-holder went in appeal to the District Judge who on a careful consideration of the whole matter has dismissed the objection and allowed the appeal. It is against this order that the judgment-debtor has filed the present revision. 4. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant is that by means of the supervening law the judgment-debtor applicant became an Adhivasi because he was a recorded occupant over the plots in dispute in 1357 Fasli and consequently the order passed by the learned District Judge is-wrong. Arguments have also been advanced as to the applicability of Section 47 but this is besides the point because no objection has been raised about the applicability of that section. Arguments have also been advanced as to the applicability of Section 47 but this is besides the point because no objection has been raised about the applicability of that section. The simple question in the present case requiring consideration is whether the applicant and other judgment-debtors having been ejected in accordance with law in execution of a decree on July 29, 1953 and these judgment-debtors having filed no application as required by Section 232 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, can they be restored to possession by filing this objection u/s 47. 5. In spite of the learned and able arguments of Sri AP Pandey Advocate, I have not been convinced that in an objection u/s 47 a thing which has been legally done could be undone. On the date when the present applicant and other judgment-debtors were ejected from the land and actual possession was taken by the decree-holder such an eviction and delivery of possession was done in accordance with law and consequently when the decree-holder entered into possession the former rights of the parties, if any, came to an end Such rights could only be reviewed if at all under the supervening law, that is Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, it proceedings under that Act would have been taken. But the present is an objection u/s 47 and the judgment-debtors pray that the decree-holder should be dispossessed because of some rights which they claimed on the basis of S 20(a) or 20(b). This cannot at all be done in execution proceedings. As stated earlier the decree holder was delivered possession of the disputed land in execution of his decree. The rights of toe tenant, if any, were extinguished u/s 45 of the UP Tenancy Act and once those rights were extinguished and the landlord took possession he cannot be dispossessed by means of an objection u/s 47 CPC. In execution proceedings the former rights could not be revived after satisfaction of the decree. The judgment debtor wanted to take advantage of explanation of Section 20. His remedy lay in the revenue court by means of an application u/s 232 of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act & not by way of an objection u/s 47. The learned District Judge was right in allowing the appeal and dismissing the objection. This revision has no force and is hereby dismissed with costs. 6. His remedy lay in the revenue court by means of an application u/s 232 of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act & not by way of an objection u/s 47. The learned District Judge was right in allowing the appeal and dismissing the objection. This revision has no force and is hereby dismissed with costs. 6. Record of the case shall be sent back to the court below us early as possible.