JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - This revision is directed against the order of rejection of a petition filed by the Judgment-debtors u/s 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Opposite-party Nos. 1 and 2 as Plaintiffs obtained an ex parte decree and executed the same against the Petitioner and opposite party Nos. 3 to 14. In the execution case, objection was taken that opposite party No. 14 is a public deity, but it had not been made a party and the villagers were also not made parties and the' Plaintiffs having taken no action u/s 69 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, the decree cannot be executed by the judgment-debtors. The objection raised by the judgment-debtors has been rejected by the executing Court and hence this revision. 2. It is not disputed that the Plaintiffs (opposite party Nos. 1 and 2) obtained an ex parte decree against the judgment-debtors. The only question canvased here is that the suit was not maintainable, inasmuch as the Plaintiffs had not taken recourse to the provisions of Section 69 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act prior to institution of the suit, as opposite party No. 14 is a public deity. Whether opposite party No. 14 is a public deity or not is a fact to be enquired into and there cannot be presumption on the fact that opposite party No. 14 is a public deity as defined in the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act. It is well settled that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree, unless the decree is a nullity. To put it in other words, if the Court lacks in jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter and if the decree is against a man who is not in existence, then in that case the decree can be said to be a nullity. 3. In Hira Lal Patni v. Sri Kali Nath 1961 S.C.D. 951, it has been held that objection to territorial jurisdiction of a Court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of the Court to try-the case. The objections to the validity of the decree raised do not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the trial Court and cannot be entertained by the executing Court. The Supreme Court in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi Vs. The objections to the validity of the decree raised do not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the trial Court and cannot be entertained by the executing Court. The Supreme Court in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi Vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Others has observed: A Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree between the parties or the representatives; it must take the decree according to its tenor and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between the parties. The Supreme Court, however, added a rider to the aforesaid principles by observing: When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, where it is passed without bringing the legal representatives on the record of a person who was dead at the date of the decree, or against a ruling prince without a certificate, is sought to be executed an objection in that behalf may be raised in a proceeding for execution. Again, when the decree is made by a Court which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it, objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if the objection appears on the face of the record; where the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court to pass the decree does not appear on the face of the record and requires 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. The aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court have also been reiterated by this Court in Janata Cinema v. Cinema Private Ltd. Reliance is placed on Sureswar Pujhari and Ors. v. Jadumani Pujhari and Ors. relating to application of the provisions of Section 69 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act. That was a case in which the suit came up in second appeal to the High Court and in appeal the ground was taken when the suit had not reached its finality and was pending in appeal. But the position is different in the instant case. That was a case in which the suit came up in second appeal to the High Court and in appeal the ground was taken when the suit had not reached its finality and was pending in appeal. But the position is different in the instant case. Here the decree has already been passed and it is under execution. It is not a case where the suit continues till it reaches its finality in appeal. Therefore, that decision is of no help to the Petitioner. 4. If the facts and circumstances of the particular case are considered en the dictum of the Supreme Court and reiterated by this Court, it is clear that the objection of the judgment-debtors has been rightly rejected by the executing Court, There has been no illegal exercise of jurisdiction nor the order suffers from any illegality. 5. In the result the revision has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case their will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed