1. Considering the nature of relief prayed for in this revision, there is no need to issue notice to the respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the revision petitioners filed E.P.No.90 of 1999 in O.S.No.1138 of 1990 and in the Execution Petition originally E.A.No.264 of 2001 was filed and that was dismissed and against that C.M.A.No.8 of 2004 was filed and that was also dismissed and aggrieved by the same C.R.P.No.276 of 2006 was filed before this Court on 23.11.2010 and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein was set up by the respondents 2 to 7 to file E.A.No.53 of 2011 claiming right over the property and that application is pending from February 2011. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the suit is of the year 1990 and E.P.No.90 of 1999 was filed in the year 1999 and two persons filed objections to the execution of the decree by filing E.A.No.264 of 2001 stating that they are the owners of the property and that application was dismissed and confirmed in the revision by this court and now the 1st respondent herein had taken the very same ground to att