Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenges order dated 20.1.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Loharu dismissing the objections of the judgment-debtor-petitioner. The principal objection that the land sought to be attached is a dwelling house and no proper opportunity was given did not find favour with the Civil Judge who has dismissed the same by observing as under:- "A decree dated 12.6.1989 was passed in favour of the decree holder-bank for the recovery of Rs. 5499/- with costs alongwith interest at the rate of 13% per annum. The objector/judgment debtor No. 1 has failed to make the payment of the decretal amount to the decree holder-bank. Earlier also the objector/judgment debtor No. 1 filed the objections taking the same objection that the decree in question is not executable. The said objections were dismissed by my learned predecessor vide orders dated 28.8,2002. The said objections were filed by objector/judgment debtor No. 1 after he was served with a notice under order 21 Rule 66 Code of Civil Procedure which was for the settling the terms of sale. No objections with regard to the attachment of the land without adopting the due procedure was taken by him. The land measuring 8 kanals 7 marlas owned by objector has been attached for the recovery of the decretal amount. A rapat also stand entered in the revenue record to that effect. The attachment has been effected by adopting due procedure. The revenue record also shows the land attached to be agricultural land. It has been mentioned in the report of attachment that munadi was duly effected in the village. There is nothing on record to show that the objector has constructed his residential house in the land attached. Even otherwise the land attached other than the portion of the land whereupon the residential house has been constructed could be put to sale for the recovery of decretal amount, I am of the opinion that the present objection petition has been moved by objector/judgment debtor No. 1 just to prolong the proceedings. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the objection petition and the same is dismissed." 2. Mr. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the objection petition and the same is dismissed." 2. Mr. R.S. Seoran, learned counsel for the judgment-debtor-petitioner has argued that every thing was done in a hurry on one day and there is a residential house in the land which is subject matter of attachment. 3. After hearing the learned counsel, 1 do not feel persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the executing Court because the decree passed on 12.6.1999 for recovery of Rs. 5,499/- with costs plus interest at the rate of 13% p.a. has been awaiting execution. Earlier also, the execution application was filed and the objections filed by the judgment-debtor-petitioner were dismissed on 28.8.2002. There is nothing on the record to show that there is a dwelling house in the attached property. On the contrary, the revenue record has been relied upon by the executing Court to show that the attached property is agricultural land. The attachment order has been passed after munadi was effected in the village. Therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court under Section 115 of the Code and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.