Judgment Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The short question arising for determination in the present petition is whether an execution petition withdrawn at any stage without liberty to file a fresh one would amount to res-judicata or would bar the filing of subsequent application for execution? 2. It is not disputed that the matter has attained finality right up till the Apex Court and is at the stage of execution that the objections came to be raised by the petitioners qua the maintainability of the execution petition on the ground that the earlier execution petition on the same cause had been withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. 3. Objections were filed by the petitioners by invoking Section 11, Explanation VII and further placing reliance upon Order XXIII Rule 1. 4. Admittedly, there has been no adjudication on the merits of the case and, therefore, there is nothing in the previous execution petition which can be termed to have been ‘heard and finally decided”. Thus, invoking of the provisions of Section 11 at the instance of the petitioners was totally misconceived. 5. In so far as the second objection regarding the applicability of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Kishun Dutt and others vs. Gulabhand Prasad and others, reported in AIR (35) 1948 Patna 113 and judgment of Full Bench of the Hyderabad High Court in Venkappa and others vs. Lakshmikant Rao, reported in AIR 1956 Hyderabad 7, wherein, no doubt, it has been laid down that the decree holder has no absolute right to withdraw execution application without the permission of the executing Court. He can further do so with the leave of the Court. He has the right to take out fresh execution of the same decree but subject to the orders, if any, passed by the Court in the previous proceedings at the time of dismissal or withdrawal, as the case may be. 6. He can further do so with the leave of the Court. He has the right to take out fresh execution of the same decree but subject to the orders, if any, passed by the Court in the previous proceedings at the time of dismissal or withdrawal, as the case may be. 6. The submissions made by the petitioners at the first blush, appears to be attractive but what probably has been lost sight of by the petitioner, is that the interpretation of law in these judgments is based upon the provisions of Civil Procedure Code as existing at that time, however, in the amendment carried out in the Code of Civil Procedure, in 1976, a specific provision by way of Rule 4 to Order XXIII has been introduced to the following effect: “4. Proceedings in execution of decrees not affected.-Nothing in this order shall apply to any proceedings in execution of a decree or order.” 7. Thus, on the face of it, the aforesaid provisions of Order XXIII are not applicable to execution petitions. The reliance placed upon the Full Bench judgments (supra) is totally misconceived. The withdrawal of the execution application without the permission of the Court to bring fresh application or even dismissal of the application otherwise than on merits, is no bar to fresh execution application provided that such application is within the period of limitation. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.