G. G. SOHANI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 13th January, 1981, passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, mandsaur, in Civil Execution Case No. 5 of 1952. ( 2 ) THE material facts giving rise to this revision petition, briefly are as follows:applicant No. 1 is the successor-in-interest of Brahatakar Prathamik sakh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Sakargaon (herinafter referred to as 'the society' ). Opponent No. 1 obtained a decree against opponent No. 2 and applied for execution of that decree. Opponent No. 2 had also obtained a loan from the aforesaid society. Applicant No. 2, the Recovery Officer of the co-operative Secieties, District Khargone, in proceedings for recovery of the loan advanced to opponent No. 2, sold his agricultural land by bublic auction and the saje proceeds were deposited by applicant No. 2 with opponent No. 13 the Central Co-operative Benk Limited, Khargone. The legality of the auction sale held by applicant No. 2 has been assailed by opponent No. 2 in a revision petition before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhopal, and that revision petition is still pending. ( 3 ) DURING execution proceedings, opponent No. 1 submitted an application that as a result of sale of agricultural land belonging to opponent No. 2 for recovery of loan advanced to him by the society, a sum of Rs. 71,350/- by way of sale proceeds was lying with applicant No. 2 and that out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 13,946. 28 be attached and applicant No. 2 and opponent No, 13 be directed to deposit that amount in the Court. The application was resisted by the society. On 20th November, 1976, the Executing Court passed an order directing attachment of the amount of Rs. 13,946. 28 P out of the sale proceeds and further directing that attachment would continue until decision of the revision petition before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies and that itt ease the revision petition was dismissed, the Recovery Officer should deposit the said amount in the Executing Court. On 13th January, 1981, by its impugned order, the Executing Court reviewedits earlier order dated 20th November 1976 and directed that warrant of attachment be issued against applicant No. 2 and opponent No. 13 be directed to deposit the amount in the court. Aggrieved by that order, the applicants have preferred the present revision petition. On 13th January, 1981, by its impugned order, the Executing Court reviewedits earlier order dated 20th November 1976 and directed that warrant of attachment be issued against applicant No. 2 and opponent No. 13 be directed to deposit the amount in the court. Aggrieved by that order, the applicants have preferred the present revision petition. ( 4 ) NONE appeared on behalf of the opponents. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants, I have come to the conclusion that this revision petition deseives to be allowed. The Executing Court has failed to appreciate that on 20th November, 1976, an order had already been passed by that court regarding attachment of the amount in question. Opponent No. I had not assailed that order before this Court and that order could not have been reviewed by the Executing Court on the ground that the revision petition filed before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies; has not been disposed of as yet. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. ( 5 ) THE revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 13tb january, 1981, passed by the Executing Court, is set aside. As none appeared on behalf of the non-applicants, parties shall bear their own costs of this revision petition. Petition allewed. .