JUDGMENT : 1. The facts of this case are very simple. The appellants brought a suit against two sets of defendants. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit against the first set, but decreed it against the second set. The latter appealed making the appellants only parties as respondents. The Appellate Court found that the second set of defendants were not liable for the claim, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit against them. It went on, however apparently per incuriam to say that it passed a decree against the first set of defendants. The appellants now seek to execute the decree against the first set of defendants, who object on the ground that they were not parties to the decree sought to be executed. The Munsif threw out the objection on the ground that it is not open to a Court executing a decree to challenge it in any way. 2. On appeal the Subordinate Judge allowed the objection and dismissed the application for execution. It appears to me that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge is correct. It is true that this Court has frequently Held that a Court executing a decree is not entitled to challenge the correctness of it, and that it has been held in some cases that such a Court cannot even inquire whether the Court which passed the decree had jurisdiction to do so, but it appears to me that the present case stands on an entirely different footing from any of those to which reference has been made. In the present case though the Appellate Court said: “I pass a decree against the first set of defendants,” it took no steps towards giving effect to its decision. It did not make those defendants parties to the appeal as it might have done, and in decree, as prepared, the names of the first set of defendants do not appear at all. In my opinion the appellants are not entitled to take out execution against the first set of defendants. I dismiss this appeal with costs.