JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Petitioner, the legal representative of original defendant/judgment-debtor has preferred this revision petition under section 115 CPC to challenge order dated 08.08.2018, passed by Civil Judge, Tibbi, District Hanumangar (for short, 'learned executing Court'), rejecting her objections in Execution Petition No.04/15, laid on behalf of respondent decree-holders. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that respondents No. 1 to 5 filed a civil suit against Dhanna Ram for specific performance of contract. In the plaint, it was averred that Dhanna Ram entered into an agreement to sale with them on 14.05.1973 pertaining to agricultural land admeasuring 3 bighas at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per bigha and obtained earnest money to the tune of Rs. 1000/-. In the agreement, it was also stipulated that the remaining amount of consideration shall be paid by the respondents at the time of execution of sale deed. Precisely, in the plaint, respondents averred that Dhanna Ram has declined to perform his part of the contract. 3. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tibbi (for short, 'learned trial Court'), upon completion of trial, decreed the suit of the respondents. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, Dhanna Ram preferred first appeal before learned District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, which was subsequently transferred to Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh. The learned appellate Court, after examining the evidence and other materials available on record afresh, fully agreed with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court and eventually dismissed the appeal. After dismissal of the appeal, at the behest of respondent decree-holders, execution was laid before the learned executing Court. In the interregnum, the original defendant/judgment-debtor expired, and therefore on behalf of his legal representative, petitioner submitted objections under Order 21, Rule 34 CPC. The objections were contested by the respondent decree-holders. The learned executing Court, after examining objections in the backdrop of fact situation and Rule 34 Order 21 CPC, opined that the objector has failed to prove discrepancies and requisite formalities in the proforma sale deed. Besides that, the Court has also found that when the suit as well as appeal was contested by the original judgment-debtor, petitioner being his legal heir, cannot submit objections under Order 21, Rule 34 CPC. Finally, learned executing Court by a detailed order impugned rejected objections of the petitioner. 5. Besides that, the Court has also found that when the suit as well as appeal was contested by the original judgment-debtor, petitioner being his legal heir, cannot submit objections under Order 21, Rule 34 CPC. Finally, learned executing Court by a detailed order impugned rejected objections of the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the materials available on record and also examined the impugned order. 6. Upon examining the impugned order and the provisions contained in Order 21, Rule 34 CPC, in my opinion, the learned executing Court has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction warranting interference in the matter. 7. It is not in dispute that at the threshold, original defendant/judgment-debtor suffered the judgment before the learned trial Court and thereafter his effort before the appellate Court also proved abortive as the decree passed by the learned trial Court has attained finality and per se objections raised on behalf of the petitioner are superfluous. I am constrained to observe that learned executing Court has not committed any jurisdictional error requiring interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Resultantly, the civil revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed.