Judgment :- 1. The decree for mandatory injunction directing the respondent to vacate the building, obtained by the petitioner was sought to be executed by the execution petition from which this revision arises. The executing court has directed the petitioner to pay court fee entering the finding that recovery of possession of the property on the strength of title can be granted only on payment of requisite court fee. The question therefore is, was the executing court justified in issuing the above direction?. 2.: The powers of the executing court require to be considered in this context. It is axiomatic that the executing court has no power to go behind the decree. It has to execute the decree as it stands. It is true that when the terms of a decree are ambiguous, the executing court has the power to construe the same and ascertain its precise meaning. For this purpose the executing court can even refer not only to the judgment but also the pleadings in the case. However a plea requiring a detailed investigation of the question which can be raised during the trial, cannot be raised for the first time in execution. (See Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & Others (A.I.R. 1970 S.C.1475). The Supreme Court has observed as follows: "A court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree between the parties or their 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 in the said decision found that the interpretation of terms of agreement of lease and the user to which the land was put at the date of the grant of the lease are matters which cannot be permitted to be raised in an execution petition so as to displace the jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree. Holding thus the Supreme Court found: "...If the decree is on the face of the record without jurisdiction and the question does not relate to the territorial jurisdiction or under S .11 of the Suits Valuation Act, objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to make the decree may be raised; where it is necessary to investigate facts in order to determine whether the court which had passed the decree had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, the objection cannot be raised in the execution proceeding". 3. Going by this dictum it is clear that the order of the executing court to the effect that the decree for delivery of the property is incapable of execution as the requisite court fee has not been paid, is not sustainable in law. The executing court in holding so, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, in any event, has acted illegally. 4. In the light of what is stated above, the order under challenge is set aside and the execution petition is remitted to the court below for a fresh disposal. The court below is directed to dispose of the E.P. as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. The C. R. P. is disposed of as above. Issue Photostat copy on usual terms.