JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - This revision application is directed against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Bargarh in Misc. Case No. 8 of 1989, arising out of Execution Case No. 10 of 1985. The said order was passed on a petition purported to be u/s 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'), filed by the judgment debtors challenging the maintainability of the execution proceeding. Since the factual position is undisputed, and the decision of this revision application revolves round a question of Law, I deem it unnecessary to describe the factual aspect in detail. 2. The execution proceeding was initiated in view of a decree passed in Misc. Case No. 34 of 1983, on the basis of a petition filed by the opposite parties u/s 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act'). The said Misc. Case No. 34 of 1983 was disposed of by order dated 26-10-1984. A Misc. Case questioning the maintainability of Execution Case No. 10 of 1985 was registered as Misc. Case No. 29 of 1985 was dismissed on 15-3-1986. 3. The question that arose for consideration was whether an order u/s 22 of the Act can be subject matter of an execution proceeding. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Ganesh Chandra Pradhan v. Rukumini Mohanty and Ors. reported in AIR 1971 Ori 65 , in preference to subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Muralidhar Das Vs. Bansidhar Das and Others, taking a view different from the one taken in the earlier case. Undisputedly, both the decisions related to the scope and ambit of Section 22 of the Act. In Ganesh Chandra's case it was held that Section 22(1) would also apply to a completed transfer and petition u/s 22(2) of the said Act is maintainable even after completion of transfer. But in the latter case, i.e. Muralidhar's case it was held that if a transfer has already been effected, Sub-Section 2 of Section 22 does not authorise the Court to nullify the transfer or to direct the transferees to transfer to the co-sharers exercising right of pre-emption. Observing that an earlier decision of co-ordinate jurisdiction prevails over the subsequent decision, the learned Subordinate Judge followed the view expressed in Ganesh Chandra's case (supra). Accordingly, Misc. Case was dismissed. Observing that an earlier decision of co-ordinate jurisdiction prevails over the subsequent decision, the learned Subordinate Judge followed the view expressed in Ganesh Chandra's case (supra). Accordingly, Misc. Case was dismissed. The said order is being impugned in this, revision application on the ground that the learned Subordinate Judge failed to take notice of subsequent decisions of this Court. The apparent conflicting views expressed in the two cases were resolved by a Division Bench in Civil Revision No. 441 of 1980 (Bhaskar Chandra Barik v. Bishnu Ch. Pradhan and Ors.), and another case, both disposed of on 22-9-1986. It was held that the view expressed by R.C. Patnaik, J. is correct. The said Division Bench decision has also been referred to by my learned brother D.P. Mohapatra, J. in the case of Durgi Padhan v. Raibiri Sahu and Ors. reported in 1987 (II) O.L.R. 359. In that view of the matter, the conclusions arrived at by the learned subordinate Judge are contrary to law as settled by this Court and, therefore, the order is not sustainable. 4. The revision application is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed. Final Result : Allowed