JUDGMENT 1. Heard the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Dilip Kr. Mondal and the learned Advocate for the opposite party Mr. Hiranmoy Dutt appearing with Mr. Subir Banerjee. Considered the materials on record. 2. The petitioners, who were the defendant judgment-debtors have challenged order No. 105 dated 7th January, 1995 passed in Misc. Case No. 18/94 by the learned Assistant District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application of the petitioners herein filed under Section 47 of the C.P.C. 3. Fact leading to this revisional application is that in a Mortgage suit the Bank being the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 73 of 78 before that Court, a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on contest. The decree was levied to execution in Title Execution Case No. 10/84 before the said Court. An order was passed for auction sale of the property of the judgment-debtor and at the stage of issuance of proclamation for auction sale, the judgment-debtor filed an application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. challenging the decree on the ground of satisfaction. In that petition it was contended by the judgment-debtor that the decree has already been satisfied out of the property which was mortgage to the decree-holder before the decree and that should be recorded by the Executing Court and execution should be set aside on the ground that the decree has been satisfied. Upon that application of the judgment-debtor, Misc. Case No. 21/93 was registered and the same was contested by the decree-holder and that application was rejected by the learned Assistant District Judge by order No. 89 dated 18th June, 1994. Against that order, a revision was taken out by the judgment-debtor before this Court and the revision was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 12th August, 1994. While dismissing that revision, the revision Court, inter alia, held so far as the objection under Section 47 of the C.P.C. is concerned, we are of the view that the question raised in revisional application cannot be gone into by the Executing Court under Section 47 of the C.P.C. and the Executing Court rightly rejected that objection under Section 47". So, the revision was dismissed not only on the ground of technicality, that is, the application was misconceived, but also on merit. So, the revision was dismissed not only on the ground of technicality, that is, the application was misconceived, but also on merit. Thereafter, the judgment-debtor again filed an application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. in that Execution proceeding and Misc. Case No. 18 of 1994 has been registered thereupon. Again, prayer for adjustment was made in that 47 application alleging the same fact which was the subject matter of the earlier proceeding upon an application under Section 47. The learned Judge in that Misc. Case recorded that earlier there was an application by the judgment-debtor under Section 47 and the same was dismissed. The same was challenged before the Division Bench in revision and the revisional application was dismissed. The learned Judge also observed that the Section 47 application has been preferred on the self-same fact which was the subject matter of the earlier 47 application. This order of dismissal of the second 47 application in Misc. Case No. 18/94 the learned Assistant District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore, by order No. 105 dated 7.1.1995 is the subject matter of the present revision. 4. Mr. Dilip Kr. Mondal, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the decree has already been satisfied from the property which was pledged to the bank of which the bank was in custody and so the decree should not be executed as the same has been satisfied. 5. Mr. Dutt on the other band contended that self-same question was posed in the earlier application under Section 47 by the judgment-debtor in Misc. Case No. 21/93 and the said Misc. Case was dismissed by the learned Assistant District Judge and the said order of dismissal of the Misc. Case was challenged in this Court and this Court also dismissed the revisional application and both the matters have reached finality and the same question cannot be reopened again and no second application under Section 47 is maintainable in view of Section 11 of the C.P.C. 6. Heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties. Considered the materials on record. It has already been pointed out that upon an earlier application under Section 47 of the C. P.C., the judgment-debtor claimed adjustment on the ground that the decree has been satisfied from the property which was pledged to the plaintiff-decree-holder as such the decree has been satisfied and the decree is not executable. Considered the materials on record. It has already been pointed out that upon an earlier application under Section 47 of the C. P.C., the judgment-debtor claimed adjustment on the ground that the decree has been satisfied from the property which was pledged to the plaintiff-decree-holder as such the decree has been satisfied and the decree is not executable. The said question did not find favour either by the Executing Court or by the High Court. The judgment debtor, by the second application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. wanted to reopen that question by making the self-same allegation but as the matter has reached finality, the same cannot be reopened and in my view, the principle of res judicata as enshrined in Section 11 of the C. P. C. shall apply on all forces. As the second application under Section 47 is not maintainable, the revision challenging an order passed on that second application under Section 47 is not also maintainable. I, accordingly, dismiss the revisional application.