JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - The appellate order of the learned District Judge. Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 1996 reversing the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Udala passed in M.J.C. No. 12 of 1995 has been assailed in the present revision. 2. A few facts giving rise to the present revision may be stated thus: Petitioner was the defendant No. 1 and the opposite parties were the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.73 of 1979. The aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiffs was for declaration of Title in respect of the land as described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint, recovery of Schedule 'B' land which is a pan of Schedule 'A' and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession. As it appears from the order passed in M.J.C. No. 12 of 1995, the suit land originally belonged to one Jagannath Behera who while in possession transferred part of it as described in schedule 'B' of the plaint to Nathuram Khandelwalla and Kanhcilal under registered sale deed dated 1.3.1969. The purchaser applied to the revenue authorities for mutation of the said land and at that time it was noticed that one Naziruddin had encroached upon an area of one gunth and 3 Biswas of land. Since the purchasers were not in possession, mutation was disallowed, but later on the encroacher gave up possession and vacated the encroached land whereupon the aforesaid purchasers possessed the entire land and while in possession they transferred the same to the plaintiffs by registered sale deed dated 20:9.76. Defendant No. 1 having no manner of right, title and interest, trespassed into the said land. This led the plaintiffs to file the suit claiming necessary reliefs as aforesaid. Defendant No. 1 entered appearance and filed written statement contending that 'A' schedule land originally belonged to one Madana Majhi who by oral sale transferred to Sk. Naziruddin and Sk. Abdullah in the year 1944 and put them in possession. In a partition between the transferees the said land fell to the share of Naziruddin who constructed a dwelling house thereon. Sk. Naziiruddin being the exclusive owner in possession, transferred a portion of it including the house standing thereon as described in schedule 'B' of the plaint to defendant No. 1 and since purchase he has been slaying in the said house. Sk. Naziiruddin being the exclusive owner in possession, transferred a portion of it including the house standing thereon as described in schedule 'B' of the plaint to defendant No. 1 and since purchase he has been slaying in the said house. In the circumstances, he urged that the plaintiffs having no right, title and interest in the suit land are not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were struck. Defendant No. 1 however, did not contest the suit and was set ex parte. The trial court upon hearing, decreed the suit on 29.8.1985 on contest with cost against defendants No. 2 to 10, and 13 to 16 and ex parte against defendant Nos. 1, 11 and 12 without cost. The right, title and interest of the plaintiffs were declared over the entire suit land and the defendants were directed to give delivery of possesion to the plaintiffs within two months from the date of decree failing which the plaintiffs were given liberty to recover possession through process of the court. Besides, the defendants were also permanently injuncted from interfering with the plaintiffs possession. The plaintiffs then levied execution vide Execution Case No. 2 of 1987. The wife of defendant No. 1 filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C., registered as M.J.C. No.7 of 1994 claiming title to the suit schedule 'B' land by virtue of oral gift from her husband in 1993. She also filed another petition u/s 47. C.P.C., challenging the excitability of the decree and both the petitions were rejected by order dated 30.3.1994. When the matter stood thus, defendant No. 1 filed a petition u/s 47. C.P.C., vide M.J.C. No. 13 of 1994 contending that the decree is not executable since the plaintiffs did not disclose in the plaint that there exists a house on Schedule 'B' land. Upon hearing the parties, the execution court rejected the prayer by order dated 10.4.1995 against which Civil Revision No. 13 of 1995 was carried. By a reasoned order, the learned District Judge, Maytirbhanj, Baripada dismissed the said revision at the stage of admission. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 moved the execution court under Order 47. Rule 1, C P.C. vide M.J.C. No. 12 of 1995 to review the order passed in the aforesaid M.J.C. No. 13 of 1994 on the self-same ground taken in the revision. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 moved the execution court under Order 47. Rule 1, C P.C. vide M.J.C. No. 12 of 1995 to review the order passed in the aforesaid M.J.C. No. 13 of 1994 on the self-same ground taken in the revision. The fact that the revisional court was not notice of the court while seeking for review. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). Udala by his order dated 28.10.1995 reviewed the order passed in M.J.C. No. 13 of 1994 and restored the case for fresh hearing and aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs moved the learned District Judge in appeal. As stated earlier, the appellate court reversed the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior) Division) and it is against that order the present revision is filed at the instance of defendant No. 1. 4. I am shocked to find that the learned Civil Judge was oblivions of the scope and ambit of the power of review as envisaged in Order 47. Rule 1, C.P.C. As it appears, in the garb of exercising such power he sat upon the order of the trial Judge as appellate court and reviewed the same and while doing so, made certain uncharitable and unwarranted remarks upon his predecessor who passed the decree. What would have weighed with the appellate court had the decree been challenged were taken note of by the learned Civil Judge in finding fault with the trial court in exercise of power of review. In his opinion one of the issues being whether Madan Majhi had sold the suit land to Naziruddin from whom defendant No. 1 claimed to have purchased, the plaintiffs ought to have been called upon to prove as to who was the owner in possession of the suit land prior to Jagannath Behera who, according to him, transferred it to Nathuram Khandelwal and another in 1969 and what documents were available in proof of acquisition of title of the aforesaid transferor and had the same been not proved, the ultimate decision would have gone against the plaintiffs. So, inaction of the trial court in not insisting on the plaintiffs to bring all materials on record, he has observed, is sufficient to review the decree under challenge. So, inaction of the trial court in not insisting on the plaintiffs to bring all materials on record, he has observed, is sufficient to review the decree under challenge. He further held that in view of the fact that defendant No. 1 had specifically claimed title to Schedule 'B' land by virtue of purchase, the trial court as a matter of duly should have asked the plaintiffs to prove as to who the recorded owner was in the previous record-of-rights since the subsequent record-of-rights that stands in the name of Jagannath Behera ipso facto does not confer title on him and that having not been done, it exposed the court to criticism. 5. As provided in Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. as party aggrieved by the decree may ask for review on any of the following grounds, namely: (i) on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, or (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) for any other sufficient reason. 6. It may be reiterated, defendant No. 1 having not contested the suit, the learned trial court proceeded with the hearing ex parte and decreed the suit. Needless to mention, an ex parte decree has the force of decree and is binding on the parties to the suit. If defendant No. 1 was aggrieved by the decree, he could have preferred appeal, but he did not do so. Only when the decree was put to execution, he challenged its executability by filing a petition u/s 47, C.P.C. That petition on being rejected he moved the revisional court which also met with the same fate. So, his challenge to the executability of the decree having reached its finality, at the revisional stage, he was not entitled to make very same prayer before the Execution court by resorting to Order 47. Rule 1, C.P.C. Instead of ascertaining as to what were the mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record while passing the order rejecting the petition for review, learned Civil Judge made scrutiny of the decree to find fault with his predecessor as if he was exercising power of appellate court and made certain observations which arc totally absurd and unwarranted. He illegally exercised his power and gave opportunity to defendant No. 1 to stall the execution proceeding. The manner he interfered with the decree resorting to the provisions, of review under Order 47, Rule 1, C. PC. being reprehensible the learned District Judge has rightly reversed the order of review which does not call for interference in the present revision. 7. In the result, the revision fails and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/- Final Result : Dismissed