Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 9.4.2012 passed by the First Additional Sub Court, Erode, in E.P.No.1 of 2008 in O.S.No.528 of 2001, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, could be encapsulated thus: (i) The revision petitioner herein happened to be the second defendant in the suit for partition. Preliminary decree was passed and the matter was litigated up to the Supreme Court. (ii) Thereafter final decree proceedings were initiated and up to this Court, the matter was litigated and finality was achieved. (iii) Thereafter, E.P.was filed for the purpose of executing the final decree. At that time counter was filed by the revision petitioner/second defendant, challenging and impugning certain facts found set out in the E.P. (iv) Whereupon the Executing Court passed the order to the effect that the contentions raised in the counter by the revision petitioner herein were all considered earlier and finality had been achieved. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this civil revision petition has been focussed. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would reiterate the grounds of revision. He would argue that while dividing the suit property into 'A' and 'B' schedules, it was not equally divided and it was divided only as 4.92 ¾ acres in 'A' schedule and 4.91 ½ acres in 'B' schedule. The Advocate Commissioner also did not take into account the good and bad quality of the soil. As on the date the Advocate Commissioner visiting the suit property during the final decree proceedings, the revision petitioner did not present at the spot. As such, the learned counsel would pray for setting aside the order of the Executing Court. 6. The Advocate Commissioner also did not take into account the good and bad quality of the soil. As on the date the Advocate Commissioner visiting the suit property during the final decree proceedings, the revision petitioner did not present at the spot. As such, the learned counsel would pray for setting aside the order of the Executing Court. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguements as put forth and set forth on the side of revision petitioner, would pyramid his arguements to the effect that absolutely there is no merit in this revision and the Executing Court appropriately and appositely took into account the fact that all the objections raised in the counter to the E.P.were raised in the earlier proceedings and the litigation was fought up to the Supreme Court and the High Court respectively in the preliminary decree and the final decree stages, and in such a case, that cannot once again be reopened. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Executing Court? 8. A mere poring over and perusal of the order passed by the lower Court and also the records would reveal that the contentions raised in the counter filed by the revision petitioner/D2 in the E.P.were all earlier considered by the competent Courts and finality had been achieved and in such a case, the Executing Court cannot go beyond the final decree and accordingly, I could see no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Executing Court. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.