JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision against the order dated 16-7-1979 passed by the Munsif, Sambalpur, in Misc. Case No. 68/77 dismissing a petition u/s 47, CPC filed by the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the house of the opposite party on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/. The rent was later enhanced to Rs. 05/- in H.R.C. Case No. 8/63. By order dated 17.9.1968 in H.R.C. Case No. 32/02 the Petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the house and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the opposite party. That order of eviction was confirmed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Sambalpur in H.R.C. Appeal No. 18/68. The decree for eviction is now in execution In Execution Case No. 34/72 pending before the Munsif, Sambalpur. In that execution case the Petitioner in 1975 filed an objection u/s 47 read with Order 21, Rule 23, CPC alleging that the order which was being executed in the execution case was not a decree and so the execution proceeding was barred by limitation. On that petition Misc. Case No. 19/75 was registered and the same was dismissed on merits. Misc. Appeal No. 13/3/2 of 1975/ 76/77 filed against the said order of dismissal was also dismissed. Thereupon Misc. Appeal No. 100/77 was filed in this Court against the appellate order, and that too was dismissed on 17-8-1977. After all this, the Petitioner again filed a petition u/s 41, CPC In the execution case alleging therein that a new tenancy has been created In favour of the Petitioner in 1969 and so the execution case could not proceed. Misc. Case No. 68/77 was registered on this petition and the Court below has dismissed this petition also on the ground that the objection raised against the execution of the decree is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata and that no fresh tenancy has been created in favour of the Petitioner as alleged by him. This revision has been filed against this order of dismissal dated 16-7-1979 passed by the executing Court. 3. The order for eviction which, in law, is treated as a decree for eviction was passed as far back as on 17.9.1968 in H.R.C. Case No. 32/62. That order of eviction was confirmed on 27.2.1969 by the first appellate Court in H.R.C. Appeal No. 18/68. 3. The order for eviction which, in law, is treated as a decree for eviction was passed as far back as on 17.9.1968 in H.R.C. Case No. 32/62. That order of eviction was confirmed on 27.2.1969 by the first appellate Court in H.R.C. Appeal No. 18/68. Petition for execution of the decree was filed in the year 1972 and Execution Case No. 34/72 has been registered on that petition and is still pending disposal. In this execution case the Petitioner on a previous occasion raised an objection u/s 47 read with Order 21, Rule 23, CPC opposing the execution of the decree on the ground that the petition for execution was barred by limitation. That objection was dismissed as stated above. At that stage the objection now raised by the Petitioner in the Court below, namely that a new tenancy has been created in favour of the Petitioner was not taken, and this objection was taken for the first time in Misc. Case No. 68/77. The basis for taking this objection is that the opposite party filed Money Suit No 65/69 against the Petitioner for realisation of rent from the Petitioner for the period from May, 1966 to April, 1969. The petition could have taken this objection in his previous petition u/s 47, CPC filed in Misc. Case No. 19/75 but be did not do so. Law is well settled that the provisions of Section 11, CPC apply also to execution proceedings. Now by Explanation VII appended to Section 11, CPC by Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976 It has been specifically provided that the provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references m this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively to a proceeding for the execution of the decree question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation IV to Section 11, CPC clearly provides that any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit (in this case the execution proceeding) shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in Issue in such suit (in this case the execution proceeding). As the present objection raised against the execution proceeding could and ought to have been raised in the previous Misc. As the present objection raised against the execution proceeding could and ought to have been raised in the previous Misc. Case No. 19/75 this objection now raised at this stage is barred by the provisions of Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the finding of the Court below to that effect is perfectly correct and justified. That being so, the petition filed by the Petitioner in the Court below on this ground alone has to be and has been rightly dismissed. 4. I do not see any merit in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. 5. The decree which is under execution is dated 17-9-1968 From the records it is quite evident that the Petitioner is obstructing execution of the decree by adopting all possible ways and means and is applying his slovenly ingenuity to flout or nullify the confirmed decree of a Court of law and has so tar succeeded to continue in the house in question even in spite of the repeated dismissal of his petitions and appeals to that effect. The executing Court should therefore proceed with the execution case in a very expeditious manner and dispose of the same within as short a time as possible preferably within 2 months, with intimation to this Court. The L.C.R. be sent back immediately. Final Result : Dismissed