JUDGMENT S.D. Agrawal, J. - This is a civil revision filed by the decree-holder applicant against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Mordabad dated 9th August, 1982 by which the objection of the judgment-debtor was allowed and the decree in question was held to be not executable against the house which was being used as Inspection House. The operative portion of the judgment dated 22.9.1978 passed by the Civil Judge, Moradabad in suit No. 54 of 1978, which was an ex-parte judgment was as follows:- "Plaintiffs suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to get from the defendants parishad one house of the medium incomes group or a plot for construction for such house in Pili Kothi Colony, Moradabad is decreed ex-parte with ex-parte costs against the defendant and defendant shall allot either the house or vacant plot of the medium income group to the plaintiff within one month from the date of this order." 2. A decree was prepared in terms of the operative portion of the order. The revisionist applied for execution of the decree in terms of the above mentioned order and in particular sought that he should be given possession of house No. 65, Pili Kothi Colony, Civil Lines, Moradabad. 3. The respondent, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that in the decree this house No. 65, Pili Kothi Colony, Civil Lines, Moradabad was not the subject matter of decree and as such the decree is not executable against this house. It was further urged that this house was used as an Inspection House since 1977. The case of the Board was accepted by the court below and by the order dated 9th August, 1982 the execution was rejected. It is this order which has been challenged in the present revision. 4. It is clear from the operative portion of the order quoted above that the decree was not passed specifically against the house No. 65, Pili Kothi Colony, Civil Lines, Moradabad in which an Inspection House in situated. The court below was consequently, right in holding that the decree is in executable in the manner in which it has been applied to be executed I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the court below. The court below was consequently, right in holding that the decree is in executable in the manner in which it has been applied to be executed I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the court below. The court below has not acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the execution application. 5. In the result the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.