JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ram Ji Tripathi learned counsel for the respondent. Present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 26.4.2016 passed by District Judge, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Civil Revision No. 34 of 2015. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners' suit, first appeal and second appeal was decided against them and during execution proceedings application No. 60C was filed on the ground that the executing court can decide the question of existence of disputed property and also about the possibility of execution of the decree and it was prayed that for determining this, the executing court can enquire by asking for a report. It is contended that the executing court had decided that the executing court can call for a report but the revision filed by the respondent against the same, has been allowed, which order is impugned in the present petition. It is contended that the executing court has to satisfy itself with regard to execution of the decree whether it is executable or not and for that report was called and the revisional court had illegally reverse the order which is bad in law. Sri Ram Ji Tripathi learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the matter was with regard to existence of a shop/room which was existing on plot No. 162 as is also apparent from the order dated 07.8.2012 passed in Second Appeal No. 818 of 2011, copy of which has been filed as annexure-4. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to the survey inspection report, copy of which has been filed as annexure-2 and at page 73 of the paperbook it has been mentioned in the report that the disputed shop/room was situated in Arazi No. 162 and not on Arazi No. 48 as pleaded by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has further drawn the attention of this Court to annexure-5 which is the paper No. 60C filed by the petitioner before the executing court on which the order impugned has been passed and in paragraph-4 of the said objection it has been stated by the petitioner that the disputed shop/room is existing at Arazi No. 197. It is thus, argued that the number mentioned in application No. 60C is absolutely different from that mentioned by the petitioners in their pleadings, therefore, the application itself is not maintainable and the order impugned suffers from no infirmity in law and calls for no interference by this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the order impugned as well as the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any good ground which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order impugned. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.