JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present Second Appeal was filed without filing certified copy of the impugned decree-sheet and therefore, judgment of this Court dated 4.8.2003, may be reviewed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 3. Perused the record of the S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 20/1992. 4. Office raised objection on 20.3.1991 that the appellant has not filed the certified copy of the decree. The appellant submitted reply to the office objection and pointed out that the Court below decided the application under Order 21, Rule 97 , CPC and in these proceedings, decree sheet is not prepared, therefore, the order passed by the Court below itself may be treated as decree, as provided under Order 21, Rule 103 , CPC. 5. This Court, on 6.2.1992, ordered that in view of reason given in the application, office objection can be rejected. However. thereafter. this Court observed that right of respondents to raise objection will remain alive. Till the time of hearing, respondents did not raise any objection and after hearing both the parties, the appeal was heard and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 4.8.2003 and appeal of the appellant was allowed. 6. It is clear from the facts that this Court was inclined to entertain appeal by treating the order under challenge itself as decree, which is clear form the order dated 6.2.1992 and accepted the contention of the appellant that in the proceedings under Order 21, Rule 97 , CPC, decree sheets are not prepared and in view of the fact that appellant already applied for certified copy of the decree-sheet also and the Court below rejected that application for grant of copy by order dated 18.1 1991. Now, the respondent can not raise objection and it can not pray for review. It will be relevant to mention here that the certified copy of the application for obtaining copy of the decree, along with order of rejection of that application, have already been placed on record by the appellant, along with the appeal itself. In view of the above and in view of Order 21, Rule 103 , CPC, no ground is made out for review of the judgment dated 4.8.2003 on this count. 7. In view of the above and in view of Order 21, Rule 103 , CPC, no ground is made out for review of the judgment dated 4.8.2003 on this count. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in execution of decree, obtained by respondent Raman Lal, the possession was delivered to his father Dhuri Lal inducted one tenant Harjas Mal, against whom suit for ejectment was filed by Mst. Rukmani Bai and Mst. Renuka, who are family members of Dhuri Lal, filed. In that suit, Raman Lal (respondent No. 1) filed an application, for being impleaded as party, which was rejected by the trial Court but was allowed by High Court in Revision Petition No. 386/91, decided on 13.4.1993 8. It appears that without consent of Raman Lal, the appeal against the decree in the suit filed by Mst. Rukmani & Mst. Renuka was withdrawn, against which revision petition was preferred by Raman Lal. That revision petition was dismissed on 15.9.2003, against which Raman Lal submitted an application, for recalling the order dated 15 9.2003. 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of subsequent event of letting out premises by Dhuri Lal father of respondent 5 No. 1 and in view of the fact of filing suit by Mst. Rukmani and Mst. Renuka, wherein respondent No. 1 himself was impleaded party, the judgment dated 4.8.2003 deserves to be reviewed, as it amounts to consent of the respondent No. 1 to the tenancy of Harish Chandra. 10. I perused facts of the case. It is clear that this Court held that the 10 delivery of possession of Dhuri Lal. in execution proceedings, was wrong, by following the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court. All the actions of Dhuri Lal, after taking possession of the property in execution, if any tenant was inducted, it is of no consequence so far as interest of respondent No. 1 is concerned. 11. Apart from it, all these facts were in the knowledge of the petitioner out he did not raise any objection on the above facts 12. In view of the above, there is no force in the review petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision Petition Dismissed. *******