ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.--This revision petition under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure is by Judgment debtor Nos. 1 and 3 in Execution Case No. 7 of 2003 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Madikeri. The grievance that is sought to be redressed is only by the 1st Petitioner who was Defendant No. 3 in the execution proceedings. 2. Submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the 1st Petitioner is only a director of the company which had received certain amounts as deposits and it has suffered certain adverse order before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Madikeri and which order is sought to be executed before the Executing Court and a sum of Rs.29,294/- is sought to be realised pursuant to the proceedings which ended in favour of the applicant before the Consumer Redressal Forum, even by taking out execution proceedings as against the Petitioner also. 3. There is a delay of 38 days in filing this revision petition and an application praying for condonation of this delay is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit sworn to by the Managing Director of the 2nd Petitioner-company. 4. Perhaps this application could have been entertained and the explanation looked into had there been any scope at all for interference in this revision. As I do not find any scope for exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure by this Court in respect of the subject matter, no useful purpose will be served in issuing notice on the application for condonation of delay to the Respondent on the application alone calling upon him to come and put his defence in this application. 5. I say so because the grievance that is sought to be espoused by the Petitioners and particularly for the benefit of the 1st Petitioner, Director of the 2nd Petitioner-company being that the 1st Petitioner is only a director who is not liable for the amounts received by the company and learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that he is well supported for this proposition as per the provisions of the Companies Act and other authorities on this aspect. I do not think it is necessary for this Court to examine such submissions particularly because the 1st Petitioner who was arrayed as 3rd Judgment debtor before the Executing Court is admittedly a party to the proceedings before the Consumer Forum whose order was sought to be executed. Both the Petitioners had suffered an adverse order and so long as that order remains in force it can be executed in accordance with law and a defence of this nature is sought to be put-forth for and on behalf of the 1st Petitioner cannot be agitated before the Executing Court. There is nothing wrong in the proceedings before the Executing Court. The Defendants who are Judgment debtors cannot be putforth as a ground seeking for interference in the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, a defence which they cannot raise even before the Executing Court. 6. Even otherwise Petitioners have not pointed out the existence of any order in respect of which this Court can exercise jurisdiction within the scope of the proviso to Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure which is attracted to the present situation inasmuch as the execution case is pending before the Executing Court. 7. Either on merits or in respect of the scope of jurisdiction that this Court can exercise under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure there is absolutely no case made out. The revision petition can only be dismissed by this Court. 8. In the circumstances there is absolutely no justification for issuing notice on the application for condonation of delay. The application as well as the revision petition are both dismissed not only as barred by limitation but also on merits.