ORDER S. Malik, J. - This is a decree-holder's appeal against the judgment datad 5--8--1960 passed by Shri S.N. Harkauli, Addl. Civil Judge, Deoria allowing the judgment-debtors' appeal and dismissing the execution application filed by the decree-holder. 2. The relevant facts are that the Appellant-decree-holder brought a suit against Gunraji, the widow of one Mangal and her minor sons. At the request of the Plaintiff decree holder, a notice was issued to Gunraji to find out if she had any objection to her being appointed as guardian ad litem of her minor sons. In the meantime, Gunraji on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor sons entered into a compromise with the Plaintiff and on the basis of the compromise the suit was decreed. It was overlooked by the court below that the notice till then had not been served on Gunraji and she had not been appointed guardian ad litem of her minor sons. In the execution proceedings the objection application in question was filed by the judgment debtors, who were minors in the original suit in which the decree sought to be executed was passed u/s 47 Code of Civil Procedure. The plea taken was that as the minors were not properly represented by a guardian ad litem duly appointed by the court below, the decree sought to be executed was a nullity against the minors. 3. The execution court rejected the objection raised on the ground that the executing court could not go behind the decree. Against that order the judgment debtors (objectors) went up in appeal and the appeal was decided in favour of the judgment debtors. The lower appellate court relied on the decision of this Court in Inder Pal Singh v. Thakur Sarnam Singh 1951 AWR 91 . 4. Inspite of service of notice toe Respondents judgment debtors did not put in an appearance in this Court. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the learned Munsif as execution court rightly dismissed the objection application moved by the Respondents as in an objection u/s 47 CPC the court executing the decree could not go behind the decree in order to find out whether the decree was a nullity. In support of this contention the learned Counsel relied on the observations made in Mahabir Singh Vs. Narain Tewari and Others and in Topanmal Chhotamal Vs. In support of this contention the learned Counsel relied on the observations made in Mahabir Singh Vs. Narain Tewari and Others and in Topanmal Chhotamal Vs. Kundomal Gangaram and Others, AIR 1960 SC 388 . 5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant rightly urged that a court executing a decree while deciding an objection u/s 47 CPC could not go behind the decree. The actual question which arises in this case is, however, as to whether the Respondents who were minors on the date the decree was passed, were parties to the suit or in other words, were parties to the decree Section 47 CPC lay down as follows: All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed....relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a seperate suit. In this case, the objectors in their objection application raised an objection that, they were not parties to the suit as they were minors and no one was appointed guardian ad litem in the suit to represent them. As they were not parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, the decree could not be executed against them. As has been mentioned, it is not in dispute that the objectors were minors and were not represented by any guardian ad litem appointed by the court. Under the circumstances, the decree as against them would be deemed never to have been passed as they were no parties to the suit and as laid down earlier by this Court in 1951 AWR 91 , it is open to a court executing a decree to decide whether the objector was a party to the suit in which decree was passed or in other words, whether the decree is executable against the objector. 6. It may be worth while to repeat here that the bar of Section 47 CPC to a separate suit applies only to a case whether the objection relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree has been raised by a separate suit by a person who is a party to the suit in which the decree was passed. It may be worth while to repeat here that the bar of Section 47 CPC to a separate suit applies only to a case whether the objection relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree has been raised by a separate suit by a person who is a party to the suit in which the decree was passed. If, however, a person is a stranger to the decree and yet a decree is being executed against him, there is nothing in law which prevents him from bringing the matter to the notice of the executing court that the he was not a party to the suit in which the decree was passed. In other words, such a person may file a separate suit or file an objection in the executing court that he is not a party to the decree and it cannot be executed against him. 7. The view taken by me that a stranger to a decree can file a separate suit or bring that matter to the notice of the executing court u/s 47 CPC is supported by the decision in the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 8. In the Full Bench case of Mahabir Singh Vs. Narain Tewari and Others it was held that a separate suit would lie when a decree is passed against a dead person and his legal representatives were not brought on the record. Sulaiman, Acting Chief Justice followed the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Rahiunnissa v. Muhammad Ismail Khan ILR (1909) 31 All. 572 and observed as follows: Where a minor had not been properly represented, their Lordships of the Privy Council disapproved of the High Court's view that if she had any objection to make _to the execution of the decree she ought to have raised objections Under Sections 244 CPC and not by a separate suit. If may be mentioned here that Section 244 of the CPC of 1882 was the same as Section 47 of the present Code passed in 1908. 9. If may be mentioned here that Section 244 of the CPC of 1882 was the same as Section 47 of the present Code passed in 1908. 9. In Inder Pal Singh v. Thakur Sarnam Singh 1951 AWR 91 in which a separate suit had not been filed, V. Bhargava, J. held as follows: I agree with the learned Counsel for the Appellant that in order to avoid the decree on the ground that the minor had not been properly represented in the suit in which that decree was passed, it is not necessary to file a separate suit.... The decree must be treated as null and void and can, therefore, be assailed in any proceedings whatsoever where this question may be relevant. 10. No doubt, there are stray observations in the judgment of Sulaiman, Acting Chief Justice, in the Full Bench case which may possibly be construed to mean that proper remedy is a separate suit and not an objection in the execution proceedings. But the point urged before me that the Respondent must be driven to file a separate suit and is not entitled to draw the attention of the executing court that he is not a party to the decree and it cannot, therefore, be executed against him was not for decision before the Full Bench. The three points referred to the Full Bench have been clearly summarised in the judgment of Banerji, J. As is well recognised a case is "only an authority....for what it actually decides"--Quinn v. Leathern (1901) A.C 495. 11. Moreover, when the executing court issued notice of the execution application to the Respondents, I do not find anything in Section 47 CPC or in the CPC which compels the Respondents not to appear before the executing court after service of the summons and to draw the attention of the court to the fact that they are stranger to the decree and not a party to it. No doubt, if they so desire, they can file separate suit and get the execution proceedings stayed against them but that should not be the only remedy open to them. 12. I, therefore, see no force in this appeal and dismiss it. As the Respondents have not put in an appearance, I make no order as to costs.