JUDGMENT - The plaintiff non-applicant filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 199 of 1970 against the applicant original defendant for ejectment and possession of the suit premises. The applicant defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. It seems that it was contended by the plaintiff that he has leased out the open plot to the applicant defendant on rent and thereafter the defendant constructed a temporary structure on it of his own. However, on the other hand it was contended by the defendant that there was already a fallen structure on the plot belonging to the plaintiff which was damaged by flood; and therefore the defendant spent amount and reconstructed the fallen structure. He further contended that he was carrying on a small industry and the structure is being used for industrial purposes. These contentions were not accepted by the Court and ultimately a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for delivery of possession of the plot. Thereafter the plaintiff started execution of the decree of possession and in that execution proceeding an application under section 47 read with section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the present applicant, judgment-debtor. In this application an objection was raised to the execution of the decree itself on the ground that the decree passed by the Court was without jurisdiction. It was further contended that the executing Court hag no jurisdiction to execute the decree for possession as it was a Small Cause Court. In the alternative it was also contended that even if it is held that the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit still in view of the provisions of section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is not open for the Small Causes Court to execute the decree relating to immovable property. This objection taken by the judgment-debtor applicant was rejected by the learned Judge of the lower Court and, therefore, the present revision petition has been filed by the applicant. 2. Shri M.S. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the applicant, contended that the decree passed by the Small Causes Court was without jurisdiction. This objection taken by the judgment-debtor applicant was rejected by the learned Judge of the lower Court and, therefore, the present revision petition has been filed by the applicant. 2. Shri M.S. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the applicant, contended that the decree passed by the Small Causes Court was without jurisdiction. He further contended that even if it is assumed that it was open for the Small Causes Court, in view of the amendment of Article 4 of the Small Causes Courts Act by Bombay amendment, to have passed a decree for ejectment, it could not execute the same as there was no corresponding amendment to section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not possible forms to accept this contention of Shri Deshpande. It cannot be said that the decree passed by the Small Cause Court was without jurisdiction. In view of the amendment to Article 4 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act it was quite open for the Small Cause Court to have entertained a suit for ejectment. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Small Cause Court to entertain and decide the suit as filed by the plaintiff. Moreover, all observed by ~he Supreme Court in Vasudeo Dhanjibhai v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehaman1, objection as to the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court cannot be raised for the first time in execution if the question depends on investigation of facts. Where the decree is passed by a Court which had no inherent jurisdiction, an objection as to its validity may be raised in the execution proceeding, if the objection is apparent on the face of record. But where the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court to pass the decree does not appear on the face of the record and required examination of the questions raised and decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised, the executing Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction. In the present case the question whether the Court of Small Causes had jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not depended upon the terms and conditions of lease and the user to which the land was put. In the present case the question whether the Court of Small Causes had jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not depended upon the terms and conditions of lease and the user to which the land was put. These questions cannot be permitted to be raised in execution proceedings so as to displace the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the decree passed by the Small Cause Court was either without jurisdiction or was a nullity. 3. So far as the execution of a decree passed by the Small Cause Court is concerned, it is contended by Shri Deshpande that under section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is not open for the Small Cause Court to execute the decree against immovable property. In this behalf Shri Deshpande bas relied upon the provisions of section 7 (a) (iii), which reads as under: "the execution of decrees against immovable property;" According to Shri Deshpande, the present decree of ejectment is being executed against the immovable property because the decree-holder is claiming possession of the suit property and, therefore, it is not open for the Small Cause Court to execute such a decree in view of the said provisions of section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant portion of section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: "7. The following provisions shall not extend to Courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887, or under the Berar Small Cause Courts Law, 1905, or to Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under the said Act or law or to Courts in any part of India to which the said Act docs not extend exercising a corresponding jurisdiction that is to say,- (a) so much of the body of the Code as relates to- (i) suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes; (ii) the execution of decrees in such suits; (iii) the execution of decrees against immovable property;" In my opinion, the sub-clauses of clause (a) of section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be read in isolation and all these sub-clauses which form part and parcel of one section will have to be read together and harmoniously. Sub-clause (i) of clause (a) relates to the suits which are excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. Clause (ii) then deals with execution of the decrees in such suits, viz., the suits which are excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes. Then comes sub-clause (iii) which deals with the execution of decrees against immovable property. The important words in the said sub· clause are "against immovable property." This provision of section 7 will have to be read with order 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 50, reads as under: “O. 50 1. The provisions hereinafter specified shall not extend to Courts constitute under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1881, or under the Berar Small Cause Courts Law, 1905, or to Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under the said Act or Law or to Courts in any part of India to which the said Act does not extend exercising a corresponding jurisdiction, that is to say- (a) so much of this schedule as relates to- (i) suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes or the execution of decrees in such suits; (ii) the execution of decrees against immovable property or the interest of a partner in partnership property; (iii) the settlement of issues; and (b) the following rules and orders- Order 2, rule 1 (frame of suit); Order 2, rule 3 (record of examination or parties.); Order 15, except so much of rule 4 as provides for the pronouncement at once of judgment; Order 18, rules 5 to 12 (evidence); Order 41 to 45 (appeals); Order 42, rules 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 (review); Order 51." From the bare reading of Order 50 it is quite clear that the provisions which are specified in the said order and which shall not extend to the Courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, do not include the provisions of Order 21 Rules 35 or 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 21 Rules 35 and 36 cleat with the execution of decree for immovable property or a decree for delivery of possession of immovable property when the property is in occupation of the tenant. Order 21 Rules 35 and 36 cleat with the execution of decree for immovable property or a decree for delivery of possession of immovable property when the property is in occupation of the tenant. Therefore, provisions of Order 21 Rules 35 and 36 are applicable to the decrees passed by the Small Cause Court and it is open for the Small Cause Court to execute the decree when the decree passed by the Small Cause Court is for the delivery of any immovable property. By virtue of amendment to Article 4 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act it is open for the Small Cause Court to entertain a suit for ejectment where a property has been let out under a lease by written instrument or orally. If this is so, then by virtue of section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is open for the Small Cause Court to execute its own decree and, in my opinion, such a decree passed by Small Cause Court in an ejectment suit is not covered by the provisions of section 7 (a) (iii) of the Code, of Civil Procedure. From the scheme of section 7 (a) it seems that it is not open for the Small Cause Court to entertain which are excepted from the cognizance of the said scheme. Therefore, it is also not open for the Provincial Small Cause Court to execute decrees in such suits, namely, suits which are not triable by the Small Cause Court. Clause (iii) speaks about execution of decrees against immovable property, which clearly indicates that even if a money decree is passed by the Small Cause Court, in a suit which is within jurisdiction of said Court, it is not open for the Small Cause Court to recover the amount under the said decree by executing the said decree against immovable property. Execution of decree in ejectment suit under Order 21 Rules 35 or 36 cannot be termed to be an execution of a decree against immovable property' as contemplated by section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There a decree is passed which for delivery of the possession of suit premises and in, pursuance of the decree passed by the Small Cause Court an execution is started for getting possession of the property under Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There a decree is passed which for delivery of the possession of suit premises and in, pursuance of the decree passed by the Small Cause Court an execution is started for getting possession of the property under Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the decree passed in the present suit for possession of the suit premises cannot be executed by the Small Cause Court. In the result, therefore, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. However in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.