JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who are judgement debtor in executing proceedings before the learned executing court seek to quash the order dated May 7, 1999 whereby the objections raised by the petitioners in respect of execution of decree were dismissed. the civil suit instituted by the plaintiff decree holder respondent was decreed vide judgement and decree dated August 22, 1988 whereby the termination order dated April 29, 1985 of the decree holder respondent was declared illegal and void and decree holder was entitled to be reinstated along with all other consequential benefits. In execution proceedings the petitioners moved an application Under Section 47 read with section 151 CPC raising objection that decree dated dated August 22, 19988 is in executable, therefore the execution petition be dismissed. The said application was dismissed as indicted here-in-above. 2. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that in the decree dated August 22, 1988 no direction was given for calculating the amount of monitory benefits. The amount of back wages and other allowances can only be computed under Industrial Disputes Act or the application for payment of back wages can be made under section 22 of the payment of Wages Act, but this legal submission was not properly appreciated by the court below. Reliance was placed on Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam and others (1994) 4 SCC 370 . 3. It is well settled that where the decree is nullity, it can be challenged even at the execution stage. But in the instant case the decree passed by the civil court cannot be said to be said to be a nullity. Issue in respect of jurisdiction of civil court was framed in the suit but it was decided against the petitioner. 4. I do not see any jurisdictional error in the impugned order and if it is allowed to stand it would not occasion failure of justice. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.Revision dismissed. *******