S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. This revision application is wholly misconceived and ill-advised. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a summary suit for recovery of Rs. 6,73,802/- with costs and interest at the rate of 23% p. a. from the date of suit till realisation against the defendants-petitioners in the City Civil Court at ahmedabad. The defendants put appearance in response to the summons and prayed for grant of permission to file an application for leave to defend. From time to time they sought adjournments for filing of the application for grant of leave to defend and despite of the grant of six adjournments by the Court, they have not filed any application for grant of leave to defend. ( 3 ) ON 12. 7. 1996, the defendants-petitioners filed an application for grant of time to file the application for grant of leave to defend. From the order impugned in this civil revision application of the learned Trial Court dated 12. 7. 1996, I find that as per their case one of the defendants was sick and one another defendant was out of station so both of them could not sign the application for leave to defend. Nothing substantial has been produced on the record of the Court in support of the aforesaid grounds. Be that as it may. There are as many as four defendants and even if it is taken that two were for one or other reason not available to sign the application then the rest of the defendants could have signed the application and it could have been filed in Court but the very fact that despite of grant of six adjournments, the application has not been filed and again for the seventh time prayer has been made for adjournment of the matter clearly shows that they are only intending and interested to delay the proceedings of the suit. It is a matter where the defendants-petitioners have taken money from the bank and as usual they have not paid the same. When the suit has been filed they adopted all delaying tactics and righly so because in fact they have no defence, otherwise they could have filed the application for grant of leave to defend at the first instance and would have availed of that opportunity. When the suit has been filed they adopted all delaying tactics and righly so because in fact they have no defence, otherwise they could have filed the application for grant of leave to defend at the first instance and would have availed of that opportunity. The suit is of the year 1991 and the defendants only contribution is to sought the adjournments in the matter from time to time. Learned Trial Court has granted indulgence much more than what was necessary in this case to the defendants-petitioners but they themselves are responsible for not availing of this indulgence. Seventh time also they only made an application for grant of adjournment and that too only on flimsy, untenable and unbelievable ground. Leaving apart this, learned Trial Court was perfectly legal and justified in the facts of this case not to grant any further indulgence in the matter to the defendants-petitioners. Under the impugned order, only adjournment has been refused and I fail to see how this order is revisable by this Court. Be that as it may, it is admitted case that after declining to grant adjournment to the defendants-petitioners, the learned Trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. When the decree has been passed, which is appealable before this Court, how this revision application is maintainable. This is only an interlocutory order passed by the Court. It is necessary to mention here that even where the learned Trial Court refused to grant leave to defend to the defendants-petitioners that order is also not appealable and as such this order by no stretch of imagination can be said to be appealable. ( 4 ) IN fact, the remedy would have been only to file the appeal against the decree and in which this interlocutory order could have been challenged but what I feel this revision application is a deliberate attempt to challenge this order by this civil revision application so that the defendants-petitioners may have some sort of arm in their hands to defer the execution of the decree in the garb of pendency of this litigation before this Court. This Court will not permit them to use this revision application as a tool to delay the execution of a money decree passed. ( 5 ) THE second purpose and attempt appears to be to get this fight at the nominal payment of Court fees. This Court will not permit them to use this revision application as a tool to delay the execution of a money decree passed. ( 5 ) THE second purpose and attempt appears to be to get this fight at the nominal payment of Court fees. In the appeal, ad- valorarn Court fees have to be paid. So this revision application otherwise appears to be only a malafide act on the part of the defendants-petitioners, who borrowed the money from the bank and do not want to pay the same. It is a public money and loans are being advanced bu the Banks to the industrialists, businessmen, traders etc. so that they may carry on their industry, business and trade and that money has to be kept rotated and in case one person retains the money and compels the bank to file the suit and still thereafter he finds different ways to delay the execution of decree, otherwise also cannot be given any indulgence, ( 6 ) ONE more aspect needs to be referred and discussed. In case the petitioners are, having really a defence in the suit they could have come up with the offer that they are ready to deposit the decreetal amount and in that case this Coun would have considered it to be a case where leave to defend may be granted. That offer has not come forward. So this litigation is only with the object and purpose to delay the passing of the decree by the Court against them and to delay the execution of the decree ultimately passed by the Court below in the case. ( 7 ) SO taking into consideration the totality of the facts of this case. I do not find any merits in this revision-application and the same is dismissed with costs, which is assessed to rs. 5,000/ -. Interim relief granted by this Court stands vacated revision dismissed. .