JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 24-9-1998 passed by the Additional District Judge (E.C.Act), Dehradun and entire execution proceedings in Execution Case No. 4 of 1988 pending before that Court. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the by an order dated 1-3-1985 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3000 of 1973, Janki Sugar Mills Vs. Union of India and others, a copy of the decree in favour Food Corporation of India as against Janki Sugar Mills for recovery of Rs. 1,33,477-26 P. was ordered to be sent to the District Judge concerned for execution. On the basis of the money decree, Execution Case No. 4 of 1988, Sri Janki Sugar Mills & Company Vs. Union of India and others was registered in the Court of the District Judge, Dehradun. In the execution case, the petitioner filed objection under Section 47 of the C.P.C. and therein a ground was taken that the execution proceedings does not lie against the petitioner, as the Writ Petition No. 3000 of 1973 relates to Sri Janki Sugar Mills & company; that the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. is not responsible to pay the alleged dues and a prayer was made that the execution application was liable to be dismissed. The objection of the petitioner was to the effect that the amount in question, if any, was payable by Sri Janki Sugar Mills and Company. The learned Distict Judge, Dehradun after hearing the objector/petitioner rejected the objections preferred by the petitioner by order dated 23-6-1994. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 23-6-1994, the petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 284 of 1994 U.P.State Sugar Corporation Vs. Union of India and others, before the Allahabad High Court. The revision was ultimately dismissed by order dated 2 1-7-1994 on merits with the following observations: “After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant at length, I do not find any merits in the revision nor I am inclined to interfere under Sec. 115 C.P.C. The Civil revision is dismissed summarily.” 5. The revision was ultimately dismissed by order dated 2 1-7-1994 on merits with the following observations: “After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant at length, I do not find any merits in the revision nor I am inclined to interfere under Sec. 115 C.P.C. The Civil revision is dismissed summarily.” 5. It appears that after dismissal of the said revision, the petitioner filed a review application bearing No. 142 of 1994 in the court of the District Judge, Dehradun. 6. It is pertinent to mention that in the revision, the revisional Court had observed as under: “I am afraid that in civil revision when this court is examining the judgment of the court below, it would be proper and desirable that such fact, which are not mentioned in the judgment of the court below, be considered. The proper course was to approach that court itself by way of review application and there to request the same court that this factual argument was submitted during the course of argument and the judgment do not mention them nor there is any discussion or finding by the court. It is the same court who could consider it and give its finding on it. This is the settled law by Hon’ble Supreme Court that if a fact or argument is not mentioned or discussed in the judgment, the presumption would be that the same was not argued before the court below. This is also the settled view of law that a fact or such controversy if not raised in the court below, it is not to be entertained by the High Court for the first time.” 7. By a perusal of the review application moved before the District Judge Dehradun, it reveals that review application was not filed on those grounds, referred to by the revisional Court rather the same grounds which were taken in the objection earlier, all those grounds were raised by the review applicant. The review application was ultimately heard by the Additional District Judge (E.C.Act), Dehradun while dismissing the review application by order dated 24-9-1990 has observed that on error or mistake apparent on the face of record is made in the order under review and no good ground is made out for review of the order. 8. Aggrieved by that order, the present writ petition has been preferred. 9. 8. Aggrieved by that order, the present writ petition has been preferred. 9. Although the writ petition against the impugned order is not maintainable but since this Court is exercising the revisional jurisdiction as well as writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this Court is not inclined to reject the writ petition only on the ground of maintainability. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and by a perusal of the order impugned as well as the entire material placed before this Court including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.6, it reveals that initially the objection filed under Section 47 C.P.C. before the executing Court was rejected by the District Judge, Dehradun by order dated 23-6-1994. The petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 284 of 1994 against the said order before the Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court by its order dated 21-7-1994 dismissed the revision on merits at the admission stage. It is obvious that the order dated 21-7-1994 was not assailed by the petitioner-judgment debtor before the higher Forum/Court and the order dated 23-6-1994 stood merged in the revisonal court’s order dated 21-7-1994. 11. So far as the maintainability of review application is concerned, the review application had been filed on the similar grounds, which were set forth in the original objection filed under Section 47 C.P.C., therefore, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly dismissed the review application by the impugned order. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed outright. 12. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. The interim order dated 14-10-1998 passed by this Court is vacated.