Judgment G.N.Prasad, J. 1. These two connected Civil Revision applications have been preferred by the judgment-debtors under the following circumstances: The petitioners had instituted a money suit against (1) Nirsu Singh, and (2) Mossomat Murti. The suit was decreed against Nirsu Singh, but it was dismissed against Mossomat Murti, who was awarded costs of the suit. Mossomat Murti, however, died without executing the decree for costs. Thereafter, Ramsewak Singh and Lachhmi Singh (the opposite party in this Court) put the decree for costs into execution in Execution Case No. 10 of 1961 alleging themselves to be the next heirs of Mossomat Murti. In that execution case, 2 bighas 8 kathas of land belonging to the petitioners was auction sold and purchased by the opposite party for Rs. 400, the sale having been held on the 3rd December 1963. The sale was confirmed on the 11th January 1964. 2. Meanwhile, on the 26th November 1963, the petitioners had put an application for release of the said land from attachment and sale, and that was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 34 of 1963. Upon that application, the sale had been stayed until 2-12-1963. On 2-12-1963, neither party took any steps and, therefore, the sale took place on 3-12-1963, as stated above. On 44-1964, the record was put up for the confirmation of the sale. Since, however, Miscellaneous Case No, 34 of 1963 was still pending, the question of confirmation of the sale was adjourned to 11-1-1964. On 11-1-1964, the petitioners took no steps and the result was that Miscellaneous Case No. 34 of 1963 was dismissed for non-prosecution. Then on 2-3-1964 the petitioners filed Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 1964 under Sec.151, Code of Civil Procedure, for the restoration of Miscellaneous Case No. 34 of 1963 which had been dismissed for non-prosecution, as already stated, on 11-1-1964. Also on 2-3-1964, the petitioners filed Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of 1964 for setting aside the auction sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure. After various adjournments, both these Miscellaneous cases were put up for hearing on 9-1-1965. On that date, the petitioners put in an application for time in both the cases. Also on 2-3-1964, the petitioners filed Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of 1964 for setting aside the auction sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure. After various adjournments, both these Miscellaneous cases were put up for hearing on 9-1-1965. On that date, the petitioners put in an application for time in both the cases. In Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 1964, they applied for time on the ground that their witnesses had not come to Court, being busy in Paddy harvesting, and in Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of 1964, they applied for time on the ground that they had applied for obtaining the certified copy of certain documents in Nepal, but they had not yet received the same. Both the petitions for time were rejected with the observation that the petitioners had applied for time on four earlier occasions on almost similar grounds and the petitions for further adjournment were frivolous. Both the cases were thereafter called on for hearing, one after the other, but none responded to the calls on behalf of the petitioners. Hence they were both dismissed for non-prosecution. Then on 2-2-1965, the petitioners filed Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1965 for restoration of Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 1964 which, after hearing, was dismissed on 22-3-1966. Against that order, the petitioners have filed Civil Revision No. 890 of 1966. 3. Against the dismissal order recorded on 9-1-1965 in Miscellaneous Case No. 8 of 1964, the petitioners preferred an appeal, namely, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 8 of 1965 before the District Judge, Muzaffarpur. The learned Judge, however, dismissed the appeal on 15-1-1966, and that has given rise to Civil Revision No. 633 of 1966. 4. In both these cases, the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioners was mat the entire execution proceedings taken in Execution Case No. 10 of 1961 were without jurisdiction since Ramsewak Singh and Lachhmi Singh had levied execution for realisation of the decree for costs which had been awarded to Mossomat Murti without obtaining a succession certificate from a competent Court. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Kalyam Prasad Singh Deo Bahadur V/s. Mahadev Roy (1941) 22 Pat LT 945, and Raghubar Narain Singh V/s. Raj Rajeshwari Prasad Singh, 1957 BLJR 93 = ( AIR 1957 Pat 435 ). 5. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Kalyam Prasad Singh Deo Bahadur V/s. Mahadev Roy (1941) 22 Pat LT 945, and Raghubar Narain Singh V/s. Raj Rajeshwari Prasad Singh, 1957 BLJR 93 = ( AIR 1957 Pat 435 ). 5. In reply, learned counsel or the opposite party relied upon Khadim Hissain Khan V/s. Abdur Rahman Khan, AIR 1956 All 575 , where It was held that the word debt in Sec.214 of the Succession Act does not cover a decree for costs which is not passed on the basis of any pre-existing debt, but is passed for the recovery of costs incurred during the pendency of the suit. Learned counsel for the opposite party also relied upon Sm. Tarak Dasi V/s. Batta Krishna Roy, AIR 1964 Cal 42 . There it was held by Bachawat, J. (as he then was), Law. J. agreeing, that no succession certificate is necessary for the execution of a decree for costs. To attract the bar of Sec.214(1)(b) of the Succession Act, the application must be for execution of a decree or order for payment of a debt. A decree for payment of a debt pre-supposes a debt existing before the passing of the decree. A judgment debt created by the decree itself is not a debt coming within the purview of Sec.214(1)(b). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the present case must be decided upon the authority of the two Patna decisions cited by him because this Court is bound to follow them in preference to the decisions of the Allahabad and the Calcutta High Courts. I am, however, unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel. It will be noticed that the Patna decisions relied upon by him were not cases where the decree was a decree for costs. Further, the precise question which arose in the Allahabad and the Calcutta decisions did not fall for consideration in either of the two Patna decisions. I, therefore, think that there Is really no conflict between the Patna decisions, on the one side, and the Allahabad and the Calcutta decisions, on the other. Further, the precise question which arose in the Allahabad and the Calcutta decisions did not fall for consideration in either of the two Patna decisions. I, therefore, think that there Is really no conflict between the Patna decisions, on the one side, and the Allahabad and the Calcutta decisions, on the other. Upon the authority of the decisions cited by learned counsel for the opposite party, I am of the opinion that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel that the entire execution proceedings were vitiated on the ground that they had been taken by the opposite party without obtaining a succession certificate of the estate of Mossomat Murti. 7. Besides, the point raised by the learned counsel does not really arise for decision by this Court because at this stage the Court is not dealing with the merits of the petitioners objection to attachment and sale. The question at this stage is whether the petitioners had made out a ground for restoration of their Miscellaneous cases which had been dismissed for non-prosecution. In both the cases, the decision of the Courts below is that the petitioners had failed to make out a good case for restoration of the Miscellaneous cases. Having gone through the impugned order in both the cases, I do not find that any question of jurisdiction or illegal exercise of it is involved therein, Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its powers under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Both the applications, accordingly, fall and are dismissed; but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.