5. (c) What is to be noted is that, after it was reported that the warrant of delivery has been executed, the Court of execution had closed the EP by noting the absence of the parties and their counsel and also noting that there was no representation. No order recording of the delivery and terminating the EP was passed as required under facts and law. Be that as it may, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent no.23, who is said to be a subsequent purchaser, he was directly impleaded in this revision on the ground that he had purchased the property that was delivered pursuant to the execution of the decree and, therefore, in the said circumstances he has no opportunity to state his case before the Court of Execution. In the circumstances stated by the 3rd party purchaser, who is directly impleaded in this revision petition, no order directing reopening of the execution petition can be passed by this Court at this stage, as such an order is likely to cause prejudice to the rights and contentions of the said party and others concerned. Viewed thus, this Court finds that the C.R.P. is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed as the efficacious remedies available to the revision petitioner are not availed by him before approaching this Court.
