JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J.—This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Nirmala Devi, one of the judgment debtors, against the order dated 13.1.2005 passed by the learned executing Court whereby the application filed by her for permission to file suplementary objections was dismissed by the executing Court. 2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that Maharaj Mai, decree holder, had filed execution petition before the executing Court for the execution of the decree dated 2.5.1990 passed by this Court in R.S.A. No. 7 of 1979 whereby the decree holder was granted a decree for possession of the suit property measuring 14 kanal 15 marlas. Previously, the decree holder had filed an execution petition for possession of 14 kanal 5 marla of land for which a warrant of possession was issued and in pursuance thereof possession in respect of 14 kanal 5 marla of land was given to the decree holder. Subsequently the decree holder filed execution petition in respect of 10 marla of land as the same still remained to be executed. Smt. Nirmala Devi, one of the judgment debtors, had filed objections against the said execution petition, but the same were dismissed by the learned executing Court on 13.9.2004 holding that there was no bar in allowing the decree holder to obtain actual possession of the remaining 10 marla of land. The said order dated 13.9.2004 passed by the executing Court was upheld by this Court in the Civil Revision, while dismissing the revision petition filed by Smt. Nirmala Devi, judgment debtor. Subsequently, Smt. Nirmala Devi, judgment debtor, filed an application, referred to above, seeking permission to file supplementary objections. This application was contested by the decree holder. After hearing both sides and perusing the record the learned executing Court dismissed the aforesaid application filed by Smt. Nirmala Devi, judgment debtor, holding that this Court had passed decree for 14 kanal 15 marl as of land in favour of the decree holder and the executing Court is bound to deliver the possession of the same to the decree holder. Aggrieved against dismissal of the said application filed by the judgment debtor, Smt. Nirmala Devi has filed the present revision petition in this Court. 3. After hearing learned Counsel and perusing the record in my opinion there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved against dismissal of the said application filed by the judgment debtor, Smt. Nirmala Devi has filed the present revision petition in this Court. 3. After hearing learned Counsel and perusing the record in my opinion there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. As referred to above, the decree was passed by this Court in respect of the land measuring 14 kanal 15 marlas. Previously warrant of possession was issued in respect of the land measuring 14 kanal 5 marla and possession was delivered to the decree holder. Subsequently the decree holder filed a fresh execution petition in respect of the remaining 10 marla of land. Objections were filed against the same by Smt. Nirmala Devi, judgment debtor. The same were dismissed by the executing Court on 13.9.2004 holding that second execution petition was maintainable. The said order passed by the executing Court was upheld by this Court in the revision petition. Thereafter, in my opinion, Smt. Nirmala Devi, judgment debtor, could not be allowed to file fresh objections against the same execution petition filed by the decree holder claiming possession of the remaining 10 marlas of land, especially when the earlier objections filed by her had been dismissed. The points which Smt. Nirmala Devi, judgment debtor, now wanted to take up by way of fresh objection petition, even otherwise could not have been taken by way of objection petition since the executing Court could not go behind the decree. Whether there was any increase or decrease in the area of the suit property during settlement operation, which had taken place in the year 1972-73, in my opinion, would be of no consequence, especially when it was on 2.5.1990 that the decree was passed by this Court in R.S.A. No. 7 of 1979. Whatever decree was passed by the Court, had to be executed by the executing Court and the question regarding increase or decrease in the area of the suit property thus could not be gone into by the executing Court. Whatever decree was passed by the Court, had to be executed by the executing Court and the question regarding increase or decrease in the area of the suit property thus could not be gone into by the executing Court. As referred above, this Court had decreed the suit of the decree holder for possession in respect of 14 kanal 15 marlas of land and the decree holder having been delivered possession of only 14 kanal 5 marla of land, the decree holder was certainly entitled to the possession of remaining 10 marlas of land in execution of the decree passed by this Court. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, no fault could be found with the order dated 13.1.2005 passed by the learned executing Court. In R.RA. Valliammal v. JR. Palanichami Nadav and others, (1997) 10 SCC 209, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that opportunity to object to the executability of the decree could be taken only once and repeated applications appear to be unwarranted. These observations were made by the Honble Supreme Court after considering the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Similarly in Krishna Devi v. Harbhajan Lal, Latest HLJ 2002 (H.R) 341, it was held by this Court, that the objections against the execution petition could not be filed in driblets. It was further held that after the dismissal of the first objections, the fresh objections could not be filed, inasmuch as the objector should have raised all possible objections available to him in one go when the first objections were filed. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the law laid down in the aforementioned authorities, in my opinion, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed. Revision dismissed. -