Judgment Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.-Instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.08.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) in Civil Execution Case No. 31/1975 whereby objection applications of petitioners dated 14.09.2000 and 25.01.2001 have been dismissed. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other relevant material produced for perusal during the course of the arguments of the case. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that decree dated 13.01.1975 is not executable. It is also contended that if the said decree is permitted to be executed then there shall not remain any way for the use of petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioner contended that this matter is lingering on since last about three decades on this or that count by the petitioners. It is also contended that decree dated 13.01.1975 passed by Civil Judge, Sikar attained finality and appeals and revisions in that regard have already been dismissed by the Honble High Court. It is also contended that Natwar Lal also filed separate suit for declaration and injunction in regard to the disputed land but the same has also been dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sikar and thereafter by the First Appellate Court i.e., Additional District Judge No. 2, Sikar but still the petitioners by hook and crook just for the sake of delaying this matter filed these frivolous applications in the execution proceedings. 4. I have considered the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties. It appears that against the impugned Judgment and decree dated 13.01.1975 the petitioners filed objections but the same were dismissed; thereafter in second round of litigation the petitioner Natwar Lal filed separate suit for declaration and injunction in regard to the same disputed land which was also dismissed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sikar on 11.03.1998 and thereafter in appeal the Judgment and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sikar was confirmed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Sikar vide its Judgment dated 22.01.2001 and now taking the same objections the petitioners filed two applications dated 14.09.2000 and 25.01.2001 in the execution proceedings which appears to be frivolous, since the same points have already been agitated at the different stages and were rejected also. 5. Consequently, this revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed accordingly. Record be sent back