JUDGMENT A.P. Misra, J. - The present First Appeal From Order arises out of an order dated 7th April, 1975 passed by VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Varansi. 2. It seems that the judgment debtor Juit Prasad filed an objection before the executing court complaining the encroachment which according to him was illegal. According to the objector the decree was flatwise and was not based on any measurement. The judgment-debtor, therefore, required the removal of the encroachment. The contention raised, on behalf of the decree-holder was that the decree had become final between the parties and the map had been prepared by the Amin in presence of the parties and he had made constructions on the land within the measurement mentioned in the map attached to the decree. Therefore, there is no question of any encroachment made by him. The executing court came to the conclusion that from the map of the final decree, the decree-holder was entitled at least to 23' from the eastern end and the decree-holder therefore, was entitled to construct that wall. He accordingly dismissed that objection of the judgment-debtor. The executing court decided the case on the merits only and did not go into the question which was also raised by the decree-holder that the present application was not maintainable as it could not be treated to be an objection under Section 47 and as it did not relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The appellate court came to the conclusion that since the executing court did not apply its mind to the question whether the decree was flatwise or was based on measurement which is the main bone of contention between the parties, it is necessary to remand the case back to the executing court to decide afresh. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that since the decree has become final between the parties and the map was also prepared which has also become final, the present proceeding could not be treated as proceeding under Section 47 as it does not relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. If at all, the judgment debtor has any grievance, he can file a fresh suit. If at all, the judgment debtor has any grievance, he can file a fresh suit. Secondly it was urged that it was not necessary for the Court to remand this case and the appellate court should have decided itself the main question raised therein. The learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to satisfy on the facts of this case that the construction made by him was within the limit as mentioned in the map itself. It is not necessary for me to go into the merit of this case, since the present appeal is filed as against the order of remand. The question is whether on the facts and circumstances of this case there is anything which calls for interference by this Court. I have perused the judgment of the executing court as well as that of the appellate court and I am of opinion that the executing court while deciding the question has not adverted to the main contention of the parties mainly whether the decree which has become final between the parties was passed on flatwise or based on measurement and it is only after the court has given consideration on the basis of the material on the record, it would then be necessary to arrive at a finding on merits of the case. In the present case since the executing court, as I have said above, has not adverted to this, the appellate court very rightly remanded the case back for afresh consideration and I do not find anything which calls for any interference by this Court. Apart from this it is also necessary for the executing court to record a finding whether the present objection by the judgment-debtor could be treated as an objection under Section 47 or not. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that in the present case the final decree having been prepared, the map having been made final between the parties, nothing remains to be done in the execution proceedings and if there is any grievance of any encroachment, then he urged that the judgment-debtor has remedy to file a separate suit but his objection could not be treated to be an objection under Section 47. It is not necessary for me to make any express opinion in this regard. It is a matter to be decided as a result of the contest between the parties. It is not necessary for me to make any express opinion in this regard. It is a matter to be decided as a result of the contest between the parties. The executing court after remand shall also record a finding on this point after hearing the parties. 4. In view of the aforesaid finding I find that the present appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, the executing court shall take into consideration the aforesaid direction while dealing this case. Costs on parties.