JUDGMENT Kendall, J. - This is an appeal against the order of Additional Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarnagar dismissing an objection to the sale of certain property in execution of a mortgage decree and awarding the decree-holder Rs. 500 damages as compensation u/s 35A, Code of Civil Procedure. It was argued in appeal that the executing court had erred in not determining the question of whether the four groves in regard to which objection was taken were included in the mortgage or not. But as it is admitted that they were included in the decree, the executing court was of course bound to proceed with the sale, and could not go behind the decree. 2. As regards the question of compensation it was necessary for the court to be satisfied that the objection taken by the Appellant to the sale was "false" or "vexatious" to his knowledge, that the objection had been disallowed and that objection had been taken to it by the decree-holder at the earliest opportunity. It is" argued that although legally the judgment-debtor may not be able to object to the sale of these groves because they are included in the decree his objection was nevertheless a perfectly valid objection in fact, because the groves were not included in the mortgage. Whether they were included in the mortgage or not, however, the judgment-debtor should have known that he could not take objection to the sale of them when they are included in the decree. His proper course, if his case was a true one, was to apply for the amendment of the decree, but this he omitted to do. When we find him in execution proceedings going back to this objection, which he might have made in the proceedings for the preparation of the decree, and raising the objection improperly in the course of the execution proceedings, it is impossible to acquit him of acting vicariously, and this was the view that was taken by the executing Court. The objection was dismissed, and I have now satisfied myself from the record that the decree-holder took objection to the Appellants defense at the earliest opportunity, so that all the conditions necessary for passing an order u/s 35 A, Code of Civil Procedure. were fulfilled. 3. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.