JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This civil revision by the judgment debtor arises out of an order of the executing Court refusing to entertain an application u/s 47, C. P. C. 2. Petitioner was a monthly tenant of a house under Anilbihari Ghosh, predecessor in interest of the present decree-holders. Anil Bihari filed an application for eviction of the petitioner in the year 1984 under the Orissa House Rent Control Act. After getting the order of eviction, he intimated an execution proceeding for eviction of petitioner. Such proceeding could not advance further since petitioner' assailed the order at different stages. Lastly. O. J.C. No. 2159 of 1990 was filed by petitioner in this Court. By order dated 19-11-1990, this Court disposed of the writ application with the following directions : (i) That the petitioner shall vacate the tenanted premises and make over vacant possession to the opp. parties 3, 4 and 5 on or before 31st July, 1991; (ii) For occupation of the premises till the date of eviction the petitioner shall pay rent as stipulated; (iii) The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to the executing Court within two weeks from today to the above effect and in case no such undertaking is filed within the stipulated period the petitioner shall be evicted forthwith. Petitioner did not give the undertaking within the stipulated period. Therefore, he was liable to be evicted forthwith. In view of this order, executing Court directed by order dated 5-12-1990 to give delivery of possession to opposite parties. Despite the same, execution proceeding continued till 31-7-1991, on which day petitioner filed an application that the decree is no more executable as the decree-holders have executed an agreement in his favour to sale the house. Copy of the agreement was also filed along with the application. Decree-holders filed objection denying to have executed the agreement. This was supported by an affidavit. 3. Executing Court did not entertain this application by the impugned order on the ground that direction of this Court in O. J. C. has not been complied with. This is grievance of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Decree-holders filed objection denying to have executed the agreement. This was supported by an affidavit. 3. Executing Court did not entertain this application by the impugned order on the ground that direction of this Court in O. J. C. has not been complied with. This is grievance of the petitioner. 4. Mr. S. P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when allegations of executability to the decree are made, executing Court is to consider the same u/s 47, C. P. C. Agreement dated 30-7-1991 being a subsequent event, executing Court ought not to have rejected the application and entertained the same u/s 47 C. P. C. to make an enquiry. Mr. Misra relied upon a decision reported in 1990 (II) OLR 20 (Kairu @ Kali Kisan and Anr. v. Smt. Munki Kisani and Ors.) where the question whether there was delivery of possession to the decree-holder, was the subject matter of consideration. This Court held that the question whether the decree has been satisfied on delivery of possession is a matter which comes within Section 47, C. P. C. Mr. Misra relied upon a decision reported in 1990 (II) OLR 440 (Smt. Radhi Dei @ Subarna Jena v. Lalit Bihari Mohanty) where decree of eviction from a house by Civil Court was subject-matter in the execution proceeding. While execution case was proceeding, land on which the house stood, vested in the State Government under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Thus, the decree-holder has lost title to the land. On that basis, it was held that executability of the decree is a subject-matter which is to be considered u/s 47, C. P. C. on the facts of this case, principles decided in the aforesaid two decisions have no application. 5. There can be no doubt that execution; discharge or satisfaction of a decree is a matter to be considered u/s 47, C. P. C. Whether the matter relates to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree depends on facts and circumstances of a case. Where a matter does not relate to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree Section 47 C. P. C. would have no application. If any application nomenclated to be one u/s 47 C.P.C. alleging that the decree is not executable is entertained, judgment-debtor would always take such a plea to get a period of respite till enquiry is completed. Where a matter does not relate to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree Section 47 C. P. C. would have no application. If any application nomenclated to be one u/s 47 C.P.C. alleging that the decree is not executable is entertained, judgment-debtor would always take such a plea to get a period of respite till enquiry is completed. Therefore, on the face of the facts as asserted by the judgment-debtor, it is to be considered whether it touches executability of the decree. Object of the legislation that the decree-holder should get the fruit of the decree as early as possible would be frustrated. Parliament has amended the law relating to execution in C. P. C. by the amending Act 104 of 1976. Order u/s 47 C. P. C. which was treated to be a decree before amendment has been amended. After amendment no appeal lies against an order u/s 47, CPC. Thus scope of enquiry u/s 47 CPC has been limited to a great extent by the Parliament. Revision is not a remedy. It is a discretion vested in the High Court to correct errors touching jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court is not to exercise appeal power for considering correctness of an order which is not otherwise appellable. 6. Whether the assertion relate to executability discharge or satisfaction a decree is a question which is to be Considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. A straight jacket formula cannot be adopted to accept all allegations where a decree is sought to be avoided to bring it u/s 47, CPC. All the decisions u/s 47, CPC, are to be read in this light. 7. In the present case, there cannot be any dispute that petitioner was a monthly tenant who has bean directed to be evicted under the Orissa House Rent Control Act. By the agreement which is sought to be introduced by the petitioner, title of the decree-holders is not lost. No right excepting an interest for specific performance of the agreement to get title to the property is created on the judgment debtor. However agreement has been disputed by the decree holders. These questions are not to be considered u/s 47 CPC since the decree for eviction under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, does not become a nullity merely by an agreement to sell. However agreement has been disputed by the decree holders. These questions are not to be considered u/s 47 CPC since the decree for eviction under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, does not become a nullity merely by an agreement to sell. I am satisfied that the judgment-debtor should not be permitted to introduce an agreement to sale just to defeat the execution of a decree. If the judgment-debtor has any interest flowing from such agreement, he can get the relief by filing a suit and the Court which entertains the suit may consider at that stage whether the decree would be permitted to be executed. 8. Mr. Misra is correct in his submission that trial Court ought to have registered the application as a misc. case. However, nonregistration of the application as misc. case would not be a ground for entertaining this civil revision. Conduct of the petitioner is such that inherent power also should not be exercised in his favour. He has not complied with the direction of this Court to give an undertaking to continue in possession of the house. From November, 1990, without giving such undertaking, he managed to continue in possession of the house till he made out a case of agreement dated 30th July 1991 which is denied by decree-holder. This requires proof in detail in a suit which cannot normally be taken into consideration in an application u/s 47, C.P.C. Alt materials and circumstances relating to conduct of the decree-holders to execute such an agreement, are to be taken into consideration for accepting the case of the petitioner. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my revisional power to entertain the civil revision at the instance of the judgment-debtor in this case. 9. In the result, civil revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed