JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks review of order dated 6.10.97 passed in Civil Revision No.472/97 on the plea of error apparent on the face of record. He claims that revisional Court had failed to consider a crucial document related to title of the disputed house, which constituted an error on record warranting review of the order. Parties are fighting it out over a house situate at Neemuch. Respondent filed a suit for its declaration and possession and obtained a decree for possession which was later affirmed by this Court. He thereafter took execution proceedings to which petitioner filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97 to justify the obstruction caused by him in execution of decree. He alleged that Respondents had obtained the decree by fraud because disputed house belonged to Neemuch Municipality. His objection was over-ruled. He then filed C.R.No. 472/97 and brought on record Chief Municipal Officer's communication dated 23.4.97. The Revisional Court dismissed his revision petition and affirmed the executing Court order on the ground that he could not allege fraud against the decree in execution proceedings and may do so in a suit for cancellation of such decree. Petitioner (judgment-debtor) has now filed this review petition to assail Revisional Court order dated 6.10.97. According to him since Revisional Court had failed to consider Chief Municipal Officer's communication dated 23.4.97 which indicated that Municipality, Neemuch was the owner of the house, it had committed an apparent error. He sought support from AIR 1995 SC 256, 1997 (III) SCC 694 , 1961 JLJ 387 and AIR 1993 SC 806 . All that remained to be seen in this background was whether Revisional Court had committed any error apparent on face of record warranting review of its order. The answer has to be in negative. The Court had rejected petitioner's revision on the ground that he could not invoke fraud against the decree in execution proceedings and in that view, text and worth of Municipal Officer's communication was inconsequential. Even if this document was given credence, it would not have altered the basis of Revisional Court order. The question, therefore, of non-consideration of this document and any resultant apparent error did not arise. Petitioner's case seems misdirected on this and so is his reliance on the judgments cited which only provides that applications under Order 21 Rule 97 could be filed by any person and required to be adjudicated on merits. The question, therefore, of non-consideration of this document and any resultant apparent error did not arise. Petitioner's case seems misdirected on this and so is his reliance on the judgments cited which only provides that applications under Order 21 Rule 97 could be filed by any person and required to be adjudicated on merits. It is not in dispute that petitioner's application was not adjudicated on merits by the executing Court. His complaint seems to be that Revisional Court had wrongly rejected his revision against executing Court's order. If that be so remedy lay against dismissal order else where and not through this review which is dismissed.