This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 15-6-60 by which he rejected the application filed by the appellants, judgment-debtors, under Section 47 C. P. C. praying that the execution case filed by the respondents should not be allowed to proceed, for the reason that the decree was not executable. (2) The respondents obtained the decree on 8-1-59 in the High Court of Calcutta for Rs. 16,101/- against the appellants. It was a compro­mise decree and it provided that the decretal amount was to be paid by the appellants in six stated instalments specifying the amount of each instalment and 'the date of payment separately, all to be completed within a period of six months and in default of payment of two consecutive instalments, the entire balance of the decretal amount to be payable immediately with interest at 6 per cent annum. By way 6f security, the appellants agreed to charge certain immovable properties stated in the schedule in Agartala be­longing to the Directors of the appellants and the respondents were to register the decree with the Registrar of Assurances, Calcutta at the expense of the appellants and on the payment of the decretal amount in full, the decree-holders were to execute the necessary documents releasing the properties-from the said charge. The compromise was record­ed and a decree in accordance therewith was passed. (3) The appellants appear to have paid two instalments in time and then defaulted. Thereupon the respondents took out execution in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tripura on 3-8-1959, after getting the decree transferred to that Court and first prayed for the attachment of the charged properties and an order of attachment was made by the Court on 3-8-59. On 4-8-59, the appellants appeared before Court and stated that they will file an objection under Section 47 C. P. C. There­upon the Court passed an order that the execution petition was defective, as it prayed for attachment of the property in question and as it was seen from the decree that the properties have already been secured and so the question of attachment did no1 arise and the decree-holders were allowed to amend the execution petition. Time was also given to the appellants to file their objections. (4) Subsequently, the decree-holders applied for amendment and the amendment was allowed on 10-9-59. Time was also given to the appellants to file their objections. (4) Subsequently, the decree-holders applied for amendment and the amendment was allowed on 10-9-59. Then the appellants filed the present objection stating that the charge referred to in the decree was not registered and that the charge can­not be enforced without a separate suit. But the decree-holders produced the registered copy of the decree which showed that it had been registered on 25-8-59, which was after the filing of the execu­tion petition on 3-8-59. The decree-holders con­tended that in view of the charge created by the compromise decree, it was not necessary to file a fresh suit to enforce the said charge and the pro­perty can be sold in the executing court. The learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the conten­tion of the respondents and dismissed the objection raised under Section 47 C. P. C. by the appellants. (5) My attention was drawn by the appellants to the provisions of Section 67 and Section 100 T. P. Act and Or. XXXIV, Rules 14 and 15 C. P. C. and it was argued that the charge even though made by a compromise decree cannot be enforced in execution of the said decree, as there was no direction in the decree that the said property should be sold in execution of the said decree, that the only way in which the charge could be enforced was by a separate suit to enforce the charge and that a transferee court to which the decree has been sent for execution cannot order the sale of the pro­perty in execution of the money decree. The ap­pellants relied on the decision "Mt. Mongi v. Mahabir Pershad", AIR 1951 Punj. 132. The learned Subordinate Judge had also consi­dered the said decision which was cited before him. It has been stated in the said decision that an exe­cuting court has to carry out the orders of the Court which passed the decree and if there is no order to effect sale or recovery of monies by the sale of the mortgaged property it was not open to the executing court to do so merely because a judg­ment existed and that the duty of an executing court was to execute the decree and not the judg­ment which preceded the decree. The said decision has no application to the facts in the present case. The said decision has no application to the facts in the present case. In that case, the decree was improperly drawn up and not in accordance with the judgment and there was no direction in the decree for sale of the mort­gaged property, even though a preliminary and final decree on a mortgage was passed and the judg­ment also had directed that the mortgaged property should be sold. The question in that case was whether the said decree which was not in accord­ance with the judgment could be put in execution for the sale of the mortgaged property. That was rightly negatived in the said decision. The proper course for a decree-holder in such a case was to apply for amendment, of the decree. (6) But in our present case, there is a compro­mise decree creating a charge and the decree has also been registered as immovable properties worth more than Rs. 100/- were charged. The fact that the registration took place subsequent to the filing of the execution petition did not matter, as on the registration of the decree, the charge would relate back to the date of the decree namely, 8-1-59. Thus the real question is whether the charge given under the compromise decree can be enforced by sale of the charged property in execution or whe­ther the decree-holders will have to file a fresh suit for the enforcement of the charge. (7) The appellants have relied on a decision "Posti Mai v. Firm Radha Kishan Lal Chand", AIR 1932 All 439 which no doubt appears to support their view. But the subsequent decisions of the Allahabad High Court namely, the F. B. decision "Mahesh Prasad v. Mt. Mundar", AIR 1951 All 141 and the decision "Jagdamba Misir v. Ram Jit Singh", AIR 1953 All 253 do not seem to support the earlier view. There are also decisions of the Madras, Bombay, Calcutta, Patna, Nagpur and Punjab High Courts, all of which take the view that Order 34, Rule 14 will not apply in the case of a charge created by a decree of Court and that a fresh suit was not necessary and that the property charged can be brought to sale in exe­cution of the decree without a fresh attachment as it has already been made a charge under the decree. These decisions are "E. Buchayya v. E. Sriramamma", AIR 1931 Mad 603 (1), "Thangavelu Mudaliar v. Thirumalswami Mudaliar", (S) AIR 1956 Mad 67 , "Gurpadappa Dodappa Hasibi v. Karveerappa Kul-karni", AIR 1934 Bom 241, "Manindra Nath v. Radhasyam Biswas", AIR 1953 Cal 676 , "Narottam Das v. Krishna Prasad", AIR 1936 Pat 289, "Gha-siram Seth Dalchand v. Mt. Kundanbai", AIR 1940 Nag 163 and "Radhe Lai v. Ladli Pershad". AIR 1957 Punj 92. (8) It is clear from Or. XXXIV, Rule 14 C. P. C. that it is only where a mortgagee has ob­tained a decree for the payment of money in satis­faction of a claim arising under the mortgage, that he shall not be entitled to bring the mortgaged property for sale otherwise than by instituting a suit for sale in enforcement of the mortgage. No doubt, Rule 15 has made Rule 14 applicable also to a charge within the meaning of Section 100 of the T. P. Act and therefore a charge-holder if he obtains a decree for money in satisfaction of a claim arising under a charge, he will have to file a fresh suit to enforce the charge. But where a charge is created by a decree even if it was on a compromise between the parties, will not be a charge under Section 100 T. P. Act, as the charge is created not by act of parties or by operation of law, but by the decree of Court. Again the decree was not obtained in satisfaction of a claim arising under the charge. Actually the charge came into being only when the decree was passed and by the very same decree, which directed the payment of money by the judgment-debtor. Hence, Or. XXXIV, Rule 14 and Rule 15 will not apply in the case of a charge created by a decree so as to necessitate a fresh suit for the enforcement of the charge. (9) Section 51 C. P. C. allows execution to be taken by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property. Where the decree it­self has made a particular property a charge, it is not necessary to further attach the property again in execution before bringing it to sale and hence an attachment under Or. XXI, Kule 54 C. P. C. seems to be quite unnecessary in such a case. What is contemplated under Or. Where the decree it­self has made a particular property a charge, it is not necessary to further attach the property again in execution before bringing it to sale and hence an attachment under Or. XXI, Kule 54 C. P. C. seems to be quite unnecessary in such a case. What is contemplated under Or. XXI, Rule 54 is an at­tachment by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way and all persons from taking any bene­fit from such transfer or charge. That step has already been taken when the decree itself made the property a charge for the payment of the decree amount. Hence a fresh attachment does not seem to be called for. (10) The learned Subordinate Judge was there­fore, right in rejecting the objection filed by the appellants. The appeal fails and it is dismissed with the costs of the respondents. Advocate's fee Rs. 50/-. Appeal dismissed.