The present revision petition has been filed by the judgment-debtor against the order dated 23.12.92 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 98 of 1991 which was registered in the Title Execution Case No. 6 of 1985. The order was passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2 at Gauhati on a petition filed by judgment-debtor under section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 26 CPC. By the same order, the, learned Munsiff also disposed of a petition filed by one of decree-holders under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC for stay of the execution proceeding. Both the petitions were rejected. It may be stated that legal heirs of one of the decree-holders tvwe been impleaded as opposite party No. 1. When this petition came as a motion both the legal heirs of decree-holder and the other decree-holder appeared through counsel and at the submission of the learned counsel for all the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal at the motion stage. 2. The predecessor of the legal heirs of opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 as plaintiff filed the original title suit being Title Suit No. 33 of 1972. The suit was for a decree for eviction of the judgment-debtor petitioner from a plot of land measuring 1 K 10 Ls. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court which was reversed by the first appellate Court and the appeal filed by the present petitioner being Second Appeal No. 74 of 1977 was dismissed by the Court. The present execution petit:on was filed by the decree-holder late Md. M^r Hussain alone and hi i mleaded the other decree holder Abdul Hussain, opposite party No 2 herein as judgment debtor. Subseqently however, on 7.12.85 late Md. Meer Hussain, the decree holder filed another petition for striking out the name of the other decree holder, Md Abdul Hussain and for issuance of notice to show-cause and file objection. The copy of the petition was made available at the time of hearing and from the said petition it appears that a statement was made in the said petition that subsequently there was a partition between two decree-holders, as a result of which the entire suit land fell within the share of decree holder Md.Meer Hussain and a separate patta was granted in respect of the said land. From the impugned order it appears that the name of the said decree-holder was strucked ofFand notice was issued on him on 25.1.86 and the learned Court has recorded that from the order dated 74.7.86 it was clear that notice was duly served and no objection was filed. Subsequently, the said decree holder filed a petition before the Executing Court which is available at Annexure 1 to the present petition praying for stay of the execution case till disposal of the another title suit, namely, Title Suit No. 71 of 1990 pending in the Court of Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati. In the said petition, it was stated that no notice of the present execution proceeding was served on him and the above title suit was pending between him and legal heirs of Md. Meer Hiissain. The ground for stay as stated in the said petition was that the land involved in the 'execution proceeding and the above title suit vis same and it was denied that any patta was issued in favour of legal heirs of Md. Meer Hussain. The judgment debtor filed the petition under section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 26 for dismissal of the execution proceeding on the ground tlfet the decree is unexecutable in view of the statements made in the petition, to the petition it was stated, inter alia, that the execution proceeding was not maintainable inasmuch as one of the decree holder was shown as judgment debtor in the execution p'oceeding and the decree holder late Meer Hussain Who filed the execution proceeding, was no longer the owner of the suit land as after partition the land fell into the share of decree holder, opposite party No.2^ A ground was also taken that property described in the execution proceeding was not the actual land for which the decree was passed and that said Meer Hussain, the decree holder had no authority to continue the execution proceeding as decree stood satisfied by way of compromise with other decree holder. 3. Heard Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for legal heirs of late Md. Meer Hussain, opposite party No. 1 and Mr. Phukati for opposite party No. 2, the other decree holder, namely, Md. Abdul Hssain. 4. At the outset I may say that Mr. 3. Heard Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for legal heirs of late Md. Meer Hussain, opposite party No. 1 and Mr. Phukati for opposite party No. 2, the other decree holder, namely, Md. Abdul Hssain. 4. At the outset I may say that Mr. Choudhury has rightly pointed out that the petition filed by one of the decree holders for stay of the execution case is not maintainable under Order 21 Rule 26 as the said petition did not disclose the conditions laid down in the said Rule. 5. A point has been urged that the present petition under section 47 CPC is not maintainable. Section 47 inter alia, provides that all questions arising between the parties in the suit in the which decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. 6 According to Mr. Choudhury as the judgment debtor is not at all connected regarding the dispute between the two decree holders, the petition is not maintainable. As stated above, in the present petition the point raised by the judgment debtor is that the decree is not executable as there was a compromise between him and the other decree holder, namely, Md. Abdul Hussain after partition. Therefore, as urged by the learned counsel it cannot be said that the present petition is not maintainable. 7. Various points have been urged regarding delay in filing the present petition and that the other decree holder, namely, Md. Abdul Hussain would not suffer if the decree is executed in the present form. It is not necessary for me to express any opinion on these points as I propose to remit the entire matter to the learned executing Court and all these points raised before this Court may be taken up before the learned executing Court, provided these are legally tenable. 8. Rule 15 of Order 21 CPC provides for application for execution by joint decree holders. 8. Rule 15 of Order 21 CPC provides for application for execution by joint decree holders. This rule inter alia,provides that where a decree has been passed jointly in favour of more persons than one, any one or more of such persons may, unless the decree imposes any condition to the contrary, apply for the execution of the whole decree for the benefit of them all, or, where any of them has died, for the benefit of the survivors and the legal representatives of the deceased. Sub-rule (t) provides that where the Court finds suficient cause for allowing the decree to be executed on an application made under this rule, it shall make such order as it deems necessary for protecting the interests of the persons who have not joined in the application. 9. The object of this rule is clear. The provision has been made in this rule to enable a single decree holder to file a petition for execution in case of joint decree so that other decree holder by not joining the petition for execution, cannot frustrate the decree. But at the same time to safeguard the interest of the decree holders, who have not joined, it has been provided that Court shall make an order for protecting their interest This protection has oeen given to the other decree holders who are not parties to the execution proceeding so that one decree holder may not enjoy alone the fruit of the decree by getting the decree executed. A duty has been imposed by this rule on the Court to safeguard the interest of such decree holders who are not parties to the execution proceeding. Even if such decree holders are made parties Court has to suo motu pass necessary orders for protection of their interest. 10. In the case in hand though one decree holder did not join, the other decree-holder was proceeding with the execution proceeding by making him a judgment debtor and subsequently, his name was also struck off. It' was a duty of the Court to safe guard his interest so that the decree-holder who started the present execution proceeding cannot obtain possession of the suit land alone. By not doing so, the learned executing Court has erred in law. 11. It' was a duty of the Court to safe guard his interest so that the decree-holder who started the present execution proceeding cannot obtain possession of the suit land alone. By not doing so, the learned executing Court has erred in law. 11. As stated above in the petition filed by the judgment debtor a point was raised that the decree was not executable in view of the subsequent compromise, but no decision was given on this point by the executing Court. 12. Mr. Choudhury has placed reliance on a decision of the Lahore High Court in Nasimddin vs. Dost Mohammad, AIR 1933 Lahore 655. Relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court. (AIR 19 0 All 188) and earlier tJecision of the Lahore High Court, (AIR 1932 Lahore 600) it was held that nowhere it is laid dawn that the commission on the part of a decree holder to state in his application the names of all the persons who are interested in the decree, is such a defect as would invalidate execution proceedings, and that it is in the discretion of the Court to give notice to the other decree holder or to the judgment debtor before making an ordei for execution, though it is not obligatory on the Court to issue such notice, and that it is not for the judgment debtor to raise an objection that sufficient steps have not been taken to safeguard the interests of the other decree holder when they themselves have not made any complaint. The above ratio is not applicable in\the case in hand, inasmuch as, firstly it was not the case of the judgment debtor that the other decree holder was not made party or that sufficient steps -were not taken to safeguard the interest of other decree holders. In the case in hand the other decree holder has appeared and made complaint regarding pendency of another suit involving the same property and praying for stay. The other decree holder also pleaded before the executing Court tbat the decree was not executable as it was satisfied as a result of compromise between the judgment debtor and decree holder. But the executing Court did not dispose of this point. 13. Situated, thus, I am of the opinion that while passing the impugned order, the learned executing Court failed to exercise jurisdiction properly. But the executing Court did not dispose of this point. 13. Situated, thus, I am of the opinion that while passing the impugned order, the learned executing Court failed to exercise jurisdiction properly. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.12.92 is set aside and the entire matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court who shall record the finding as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of Order 21 CPC and shall also decide the relevant points urged in the petition under section 47 CPC filed by the judgment debtor. All the parties are directed to appear before the learned executing Court on 5.3.93 to expedite the matter. Office to send copy of this order to the learned Court below immediately. Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.