Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Shashank Shekher Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

2. The defect stands removed. Let revision be registered with regular number. As requested by learned counsel for the revisionist, I proceed to hear the revision for admission today itself.

3. The Executing Court passed order dated 30.10.2004 in Execution Case No.80 of 2003 consigning the execution observing that decree stood satisfied. An application was moved under Section 151 C.P.C. stating that decree is not satisfied and still Rs.1,66,155.99 and interest of Rs.68.28 should be allowed, which has been rejected by the Court below by means of impugned order dated 05.07.2010.

4. On repeated query that order passed by Executing Court finalizing execution whether revisable or not, he could not dispute the same but still submit that if there is calculation error, the same could be seen in the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. and for that purpose relied on Single Judge Judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Khoobchand Jain and Anr. Vs. Kashi Prasad & Ors., AIR 1986 Madhya Pradesh 66.

5. However, I find no force in the submission.

6. Section 151 C.P.C. confe