ORDER Swatanter Kumar, J. - This revision petition has been shown on the regular list since 11.7.2000. As per report of the Registry, records have been received and service is complete but none appears for either side, leaving no option with this Court except to proceed to decide this matter on merits. 2. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 10.12.1991 passed by the learned, Sub Judge III Class, Ambala City. Vide impugned order, the learned executing court dismissed an application filed by the judgment debtor under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. While dismissing the application, the learned Judge held as under :- "The judgment debtor has again preferred this application although two such applications as mentioned by me above were decided by my learned predecessor on 25.9.79. Therefore, the plea of the learned counsel for the decree holder that the application is hit by the principle of res judicata holds good and substance in it. From the face of it is clear that the judgment debtor has only one intention and that is to harass the decree holder and create impediments in his way and peaceful living. My learned predecessor rightly held that he did not find any fruits in the objections subsequently filed vide applications dt. 17.9.79 and 22.9.79 because the execution application was dismissed earlier. Therefore, these two applications filed by the judgment debtor No. 1 became infructuous and were, therefore, dismissed. Otherwise also the Judgment debtor has not come to the court with clean hands. He has done no good by merely stating that the area in possession of the decree holder is in excess of the area decreed upon by the learned Appellate Court. It has not been mentioned as to what is the area and what are the boundaries of this area which have been encroached upon by the decree holder illegally and forcibly. The judgment debtor forfeited this right by not objecting to the demolition as also the execution of the order executing the decree. He was present on the spot when the said execution took place at the site in dispute." 4. It is a settled principle of law that in consonance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, principle of res judicata equally applies to interlocutory stages of the suit as well. He was present on the spot when the said execution took place at the site in dispute." 4. It is a settled principle of law that in consonance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, principle of res judicata equally applies to interlocutory stages of the suit as well. A judgment debtor, who was present at the time of execution, cannot be permitted to file objections repeatedly on the same facts and grounds. In fact, the present application was abuse of process of the court and has rightly been dismissed by the learned executing court. 5. I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of revision jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed with costs, which is assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. Petition dismissed