The main legal point established in the judgment is the inapplicability of Order 22 of CPC to revision petitions under the Rajasthan Debt Relief Act and the limitation of section 151 of the CPC to cases of abuse of the court process.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire record of the writ petition out of which this appeal arises, memo of special appeal and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.9.1993.

2. It is not a case where by any stretch of imagination it can be taken that decree has been passed against a dead person. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the revision petition before the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar was of loaner and he died. The application filed by the appellant under section 151 of the CPC for setting aside the order dated 30.3.1989 in the revision petition has rightly been rejected by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar. It is no more res Integra that the provisions of Order 22 of CPC 1908 are not applicable to the revision petitions under the Rajasthan Debt Relief Act before the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar.

3. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jamna Lal v. Legal Representatives of Khemraj Nathulal & Ors. AIR 1979 Raj. 179 .

4. When the provision of Order 22 CPC are not applicable to the revision petition after the death of revisionist, L.Rs. were brought on record or not is inconsequential.

5. The application filed by the appellant before the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar under section 151 of CPC was not bona fide one. The writ petition filed by the appellant is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the order of District Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 30.31989 passed in revision petition 20 has not been challenged by him. That order has attained the finality and the appellant has made attempt to challenge it by filing this application under section 151 of CPC. Section 151 of the CPC is available to litigant only in cases where an order is to be passed not in the interest of justice or where there is a case of abuse of the Court.

7. Here in this case the appellant is abusing the process of the Court. This special appeal is also another step in succession to attempt to abuse the process of Court. The decree passed against the appellant has attained the finality and the appellant is making all attempts and efforts to frustrate its execution by filing the frivolous application in executing the Court, then writ petition and special appeal in this Court.

8. From this litigation what it is said in 1930's by the Privy Council that real trouble of a decree holder starts when he puts the decree in execution, proves to be true.

9. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal fails and same is dismissed with cost which is quantified to Rs. 2000/-. This amount of cost is to be paid personally, in equal proportion, to the respondent Nos. 2/1 and 2/2 respectively by an account payee cheque, DD or pay orderAppeal Dismissed With Costs of Rs. 2000/-.

*******