Judgment Raj Kishore Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is by defendant No. 3 judgment-debtor from the order of Mr. C. M. Prasad, Additional Subordinate Judge Purnea, disallowing the objection of the appellant to the excitability of the decree under execution. 2. The sole question for determination in the present appeal is whether the executing Court, when executing the last decree of the appellate Court, has got the power to refer to and supply the specifications of the decree of the lower Court, when the last decree under execution does not contain those specifications? 3. Mr. J. C. Sinha, in support of the appeal, contended that as admittedly the decree under execution is the High Court decree which is the last decree and which does not mention the amount of costs awarded by the first Court, the decree-holders-respondents were not entitled to recover the amount of costs awarded by the first Court without getting the decree of the High Court amended and that direction entered in the High Court decree. In support of his contention, he belied on Order 41, Rule 35 (3) and Form No. 9 in Appendix G to the Code of Civil Procedure. He also placed strong reliance on a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shohrat Singh V/s. Bridgman, ILR 4 All 376 (A). 4. In the present case, what has happened is this : The plaintiffs-respondents brought a suit for specific performance of a contract entered into by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs on the 9th April, 1945. Defendant No. 3, who is the appellant before this Court, alleged to have purchased the property from defendant No. 1. Subsequently on 1st June, 1945, the plaintiffs suit was decreed with costs against all the defendants. Defendant No. 1 was directed to execute a registered kebala in respect of the suit land on the plaintiffs depositing the balance of the consideration money within the time allowed by the Court. An appeal against this decision was carried to this Court by defendant No. 3, the present appellant. His appeal was dismissed with costs by a Division Bench of this Court on 12th April, 1954. The decision of the Subordinate Judge was specifically affirmed by this Court in its judgment. The contention raised by defendant No. 3, who was the appellant before also, that the sum of Rs. His appeal was dismissed with costs by a Division Bench of this Court on 12th April, 1954. The decision of the Subordinate Judge was specifically affirmed by this Court in its judgment. The contention raised by defendant No. 3, who was the appellant before also, that the sum of Rs. 4,500 to be deposited by the plaintiffs as the balance of the consideration money for the sale should be directed to be handed over to him and not to defendant No. 1 Baijnath Kurundia, was rejected. The High Court decree which was prepared, mentioned the amount of costs of the High Court payable by the appellant to respondent No. 1 namely, the present plaintiff. It did not, however, mention the amount of costs which had been awarded by the first Court and whose decision had been affirmed by the High Court. It simply mentioned that it is ordered and "decreed that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. This is the decree which was put to execution by the plaintiff-decree-holders. The plaintiffs, however, also filed a certified copy of the decree of the first Court in order to show what was the amount of costs which had been awarded by the first Court to the plaintiffs against the defendants. 5. Mr. J. M. Ghosh, who appears for the plaintiffs-respondents, informs the Court that he has realised the costs of the first Court from the amount which he had deposited in pursuance of the order of the first Court in favour of defendant No. 1 . On this ground, he, therefore, contended that defendant No. 3 was not affected, because the cost awarded to the plaintiffs has already been realised, from the money in deposit in favour of defendant No. 1 and, as such, defendant No. 3 --appellant -- can possibly have no grievance in the matter. I will, however, consider this aspect later on. In these circumstances, the Court below has held that as the trial Court decree merged into the appellate Court decree and became a part and parcel of the same, the decree-holder was entitled to realise the costs of the first Court, even though the decree does not specifically mention the cost awarded by the first Court. 6. As a proposition of law, in my judgment, the contention of Mr. Sinha is well-founded. 6. As a proposition of law, in my judgment, the contention of Mr. Sinha is well-founded. Order 41, Rule 35 (3) provides that the decree of the appellate Court shall also state the amount of costs incurred in the appeal, and, by whom or out of what property, and in what proportions such costs1 and the costs in the suit are to be paid. In view of Rule 35 (3) of Order 41 of the Code, therefore, there is no doubt that the costs in the suit, which are to be paid, have also to be mentioned in the decree of the appellate Court. This view is further confirmed on reference to Form No. 9 in Appendix G to the Code of Civil Procedure, which is the form of the decree in appeal in which it is drawn up in accordance with Order No. 41, Rule 35 of the Code. It clearly provides that it should mention also the costs of the original suit which are to be paid and by whom they are to be paid. On a mere reading of Order 41, Rule 35 (3) read with Form No. 9 in Appendix G, it is manifest that the appellate Court decree must mention the amount of cost of the original suit as also by whom such cost is to be paid and in what proportion, if any; There is, therefore, no doubt that the decree of the High Court which was put into execution in the present case was wrong. 7. The question then arises : Whether it was open to the executing Court to supply the omissions in the High Court decree by a reference to the first Courts decree which was also filed in execution case? Such a situation had arisen in the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, relied on by Mr, Sinha, and in clear terms, it was unanimously held that the decree of the Court of the last instance is the only decree susceptible of execution, and the specifications of the decree of the lower Court or Courts as such may not be referred to and applied by the Court executing such decree. In this connection, the following observation of Tyrrell, J. who delivered the unanimous opinion of the Full Bench, is relevant : "But in the absence of any rules, specially framed by the Court for the preparation of its appellate decree, they should be and we believe ordinarily are, drawn up in conformity with the rules referred to above. And when they are not so prepared, but the decree of the lower Court with all its specifications is simply affirmed by and adopted in the decree of the last appellate Court, it would then be open to the Court executing such last decree to refer to the decree of the lower Court for information as to its particular contents. But no question of the correctness of the contents could be entertained or given effect to by the executing Court. Objections to the decree of the lower Court which has become that of the last appellate Court could be attended to by the latter Court alone. We should therefore say that the decree of the Court of last instance is the only decree susceptible of execution and that the specifications of the decrees of the lower Court or Courts as such may not be referred to and applied by the Court executing the decree." In that case, however, what had happened was that in the appellate decree the amount of costs of the lower Court was mentioned at Rs. 195/6/-although as a fact the cost in that Court was Rupees 161/10.00 and not Rupees 195/6/-. The executing Court itself corrected the error on the ground that the substitution of Rs. 195/6/- for Rs. 161/10.00 was a mere clerical error which it is not fair to direct the judgment-debtor to further proceedings to get it put right, and, therefore, it corrected the suppose mistake itself and allowed execution to proceed for Rs. 161/10/-. The High Court held that this the executing Court has no power to do, because objection to the decree of the lower Court, which has become that of the last appellate Court, could be attended to by the latter Court alone, namely the last appellate Court. In the present case, however, the executing Court has not amended the decree of the High Court, but it has only referred to the decree of the first Court for information as to its particular contents. In the present case, however, the executing Court has not amended the decree of the High Court, but it has only referred to the decree of the first Court for information as to its particular contents. Such a course on the authority of the Full Bench case itself is permissible, because in the Full Bench it was positively held that it would be open to the Court executing such last decree to refer to the decree of the lower Court for information as to its particular contents. In this view of the matter, I do not think the Full Bench decision will at all help the appellant. 8. While holding, therefore, that the High Court decree had been wrongly prepared and it was not prepared in accordance with directions contained in Order 41, Rule 35 (3) read with Form No. 9 Appendix G of the Code of Civil Procedure, I hold that the executing Court has not exceeded its jurisdiction in referring to the decree of the first Court, which was on the record, and, which had been filed by the decree-holders in finding out what the amount of the cost awarded was. On this ground, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Court below. 9. There is, however, another aspect of the matter on which ground also I do not think ends of justice require that I should interfere with the order of the Court below even assuming it to he technically wrong. The decree-holders have satisfied their decree for costs awarded in the first Court from the amount which was deposited by them in favour of defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 1 never objected to the realisation of the decree for costs by the decree-holders which was in deposit in his favour. Defendant No. 1 is not the appellant before this Court. The contention of Mr. Sinha however, was that it is true that the money does not belong to him, but it belonged to defendant No. 1 but he said that as a subsequent purchaser from defendant No. 1, he has purchased it for consideration, and, therefore, he can, if the money realised by the plaintiff is put in back in favour of defendant No, 1, follow it. From the High Court judgment, however, it appears that his prayer that the amount deposited by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No. 1 as balance of the consideration money for the same be handed over to him and not to defendant No. 1, the vendor, was refused. It is not necessary, how-over, to decide in the present appeal whether defendant No. 3 appellant was a bona fide purchaser, or not. What I am concerned in the present appeal is, whether he can object to the realisation of the decree for costs awarded to the plaintiffs by the first Court. In my opinion, it is not open to defendant No. 3 to object to realisation of the decree for cost of the first Court from defendant No. I. Defendant No. 3 is a judgment-debtor, and, therefore, certainly he has a right to object under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the execution of the decree. His right to object to the execution, therefore, cannot be disputed. But in the present case, his objection cannot be sustained, because his money has not been touched, and, it is the money of defendant No. 1 which has been taken by the plaintiffs for satisfaction of their decree for costs against him, and, he has never objected, nor has now any objection to the same. 10. For these reasons, I find that there is no merit in the appeal, and, accordingly, it is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs.