Navin Chandra Sharma, J.:— I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in Misc. Civil Review Petition No. 13 of 1987 and Civil Review Petition No. 14 of 1987. It is clear that the application made by the decree - holder under Order 21 Rule 97(1) C.P.C was dismissed, as barred by limitation. This was adjudication of the application of the decree - holder under order 21 rule 98 C.P.C and it operated a resjudicate and barred the entertainment of the subsequent application under order 21 rule 97 C.P.C This is the effect of legislative changes brought about in the provisions contained in Order 21 rules 97 to 106 C.P.C There is no error apparent on the face of the record.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both these petitions referred to the decision in Smt. Sona Devi v. Distt. Judge, Allahabad (1). This decision had no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case it related to a matter which was covered solely by order 21 rule 99 C.P.C and not by order 21 rule 97 C.P.C Both these petitions have no merit in them and they are hereby dismissed.