Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. This application has been filed by a claimant, who had applied under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure and whose case was dismissed by the learned Additional Munsif by his judgment and order dated the 25th August, 1971. 2. The relevant facts are as follows. In 1966, a suit had been filed by the opposite party for evicting the defendants of the suit from the suit premises. The suit had been decreed in due course on the 12th July, 1968 and the title appeal filed against the decree of the trial Court was dismissed on the 10th October, 1969. A second appeal filed in this Court, numbered as Second Appeal No. 26 of 1970, was dismissed in limine on the 21st October, 1970. It appears, that, before the title appeal had been dismissed, an execution case was levied by the decree-holder on the 23rd September, 1969, numbered as Execution Case No. 16 of 1969. The present application under Order 21, Rule 58 was filed by the petitioner on the 9th July, 1971. Before the conclusions of the learned trial Judge are mentioned, it may be stated, that, an application under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed by the aggrieved judgment-debtor, which was dismissed on the 18th January, 1971, and an appeal from that order was also dismissed on the 29th June, 1971. The learned Munsif has now held, that, the petitioner was fully aware of the institution of the original suit against his brothers for eviction and he had also known of the execution case levied against the judgment-debtors. The learned Munsif has, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances, held, that, the present petitioner had filed his application under Order 21, Rule 58 only to delay the execution case. The learned Judge has also held, that, the present petitioner knew of the fate of the application which had been filed under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, that under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court below was bound to investigate the claim or objection made by his client and that the application could not have been defeated on the ground of delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, that under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court below was bound to investigate the claim or objection made by his client and that the application could not have been defeated on the ground of delay. The question of delay has arisen because of a proviso incorporated by this Court in Order 21, Rule 58 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which runs thus: "Provided that no such investigation shall be made where the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed." According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the proviso was not attracted once the miscellaneous case was registered for investigation of the claim made by the petitioner. There is hardly any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, because, under Rule 58 (1) of Order 21, the Court had to investigate the claim or objection made by an applicant, but no such investigation could proceed, if the Court considered that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. On the findings arrived at by the learned Munsif, it is clear, that, the petitioner had full knowledge of the suit, of the proceeding under Sec. 47 and of the execution case. Therefore, the learned Munsif held, that, the petitioner had made unnecessary delay in filing his application and this he had done only after the appeal from the proceeding under Sec. 47 had been dismissed on the 29th June, 1971. There is no merit in the contention, that, once the miscellaneous case was registered, it had to be investigated fully and even if at any time subsequent to the registering of the case, the Court came to the conclusion, that, the claim had been unnecessarily delayed, the investigation had still to be completed. Furthermore, it is clear, that, the learned Munsif has also decided the application on merit. Towards the end of his judgment and order he has stated, that, the applicant had failed to establish the claim as alleged and that over and above, the claim put by the applicant was to unnecessarily delay the execution case. Furthermore, it is clear, that, the learned Munsif has also decided the application on merit. Towards the end of his judgment and order he has stated, that, the applicant had failed to establish the claim as alleged and that over and above, the claim put by the applicant was to unnecessarily delay the execution case. It appears that the conclusion of the learned Judge on merit was given on a consideration of the allegations which had been made in the title suit and on the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court and the first appellate Court in that suit. Therefore, I do not think, that, any case has been made out for interference in the civil revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The application is, therefore, dismissed, but there will be no order for costs. 3 The order of stay stands vacated.