P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE revision petitioners are the petitioners in E. P. No. 87 of 1991 in O. S. No. 1641 of 1985 on the file of the vii Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad dated 10-11-1995. ( 2 ) THE petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 1641 of 1985, filed E. P. No. 87 of 1991 under Order 21 Rule 34 C. P. C. seeking a direction to the judgment-debtor to execute a registered deed of reconveyance relating to premises bearing No. 17-6-482 jakeer Hussain Lane, Outside Dabeerpura, hyderabad. The respondent judgment- debtor had filed a counter and had opposed the matter and the learned VII Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by order dated 10-11-1995 had dismissed the execution petition as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners-decreeholders-plaintiffs had preferred the present civil revision petition. ( 3 ) MS. Balarani, learned Counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the decree dated 7-12-1988 in O. S. No. 1641 of 1985 is no doubt an ex parte decree but however an ex parte decree also is a decree unless it is set aside. Apart from it, it was also brought to my notice that the respondent judgment-debtor defendant filed an application LA. No. 1163 of 1992 to condone the delay and also requested for setting aside the said ex parte decree and the said application was dismissed on 4-5-1984 and aggrieved by the same the fespondent preferred Civil revision Petition No. 2265 of 1995 and the same was dismissed by this Hon ble Court. Thus, the decree passed by the Court below became final. Ms. Balarani, learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the executing Court while executing the decree cannot go behind the decree except in exceptional circumstances. It was further submitted that the reasoning given by the court below in arriving at the conclusion that the execution petition is not maintainable and the decree is void and unenforceable are all unsustainable observations and the very approach of the court below is totally erroneous. It was also further contended that it is not a case where the Court has no jurisdiction to pass the decree and hence the executing Court had totally erred in coming to the conclusion that the execution petition itself is not maintainable. It was also further contended that it is not a case where the Court has no jurisdiction to pass the decree and hence the executing Court had totally erred in coming to the conclusion that the execution petition itself is not maintainable. It was further contended that the discussion relating to Order 14 Rule 2 c. P. C. and the non-recording of reasons by the Court below are also unsustainable and those observations are irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the maintainability or otherwise of the execution petition. ( 4 ) MS. Balarani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, had relied upon several decisions in V. D. Modi vs. B. A. Rehman; and kakatiya Finance vs. N. Lingaiah; and contended that an ex parte decree is as well executable as a contested decree and the executing Court cannot normally go behind the decree unless it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also had placed reliance in c. Malla Reddy vs. Shiva Goud wherein it was held as follows:"an ex parte decree is as well executable as a contested decree. Moreover, if the contention is that the decree has been obtained by the plaintiff who is not entitled to a decree that question has to be agitated in the suit or by challenging the decree by way of appeal, review or revision whatever provision may apply. The decree cannot be challenged in execution. Once a decree is passed, the executing Court cannot go behind the decree or merits of the case. Thus, the decree is not inexecutable. It has been passed by a Court having jurisdiction. " ( 5 ) SRI T. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent had made elaborate submissions to sustain the order of the Court below. The learned counsel had contended that the impugned order is a detailed and reasoned order wherein an elaborate discussion was made why the execution petition is not maintainable and this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 115 C. P. C. need not interfere with such an order since there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Court below. The learned Counsel for the respondent further narrated several facts relating to the dispute from the beginning even prior to the passing of decree. The learned Counsel for the respondent further narrated several facts relating to the dispute from the beginning even prior to the passing of decree. The learned Counsel for the respondent had submitted that the property was purchased by the wife of the judgment-debtor on 6-5-1969 and an agreement of reconveyance was also executed by the wife of the respondent-judgment-debtor, smt. Badar Fathima on the same day and she died subsequent to the purchase and further before the institution of the suit a notice dated 25-3-1983 was given and reply was given on 16-4-1985 and subsequent thereto the suit was instituted and a detailed written statement was filed on 24-2-1986 raising some important pleas and on the strength of the pleadings the following issues had been settled. (1) Whether the plaintiffs obtained loan of Rs. 3,000. 00 from the wife of defendant by executing registered sale deed in her favour? (2) Whether the defendant s wife executed a deed of reconveyance in favour of the plaintiff on the same day? (3) Whether the averments that the time was not the essence of the agreement of reconveyance is correct? (4) Whether the defendant reconstructed the house by spending huge amount? (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the specific performance against the defendant as prayed? (6) To what relief ?the learned Counsel for the respondent further contended that P. W. I was examined on 7-12-1988 and on the same day the defendant was not present and he was set ex parte and there was no cross-examination and further the Court below made a judgment without application of mind and even from the very reading of the judgment it is clear that there is non-application of mind and the said judgment is not in accordance with law. It was further contended that when the judgment itself is not in accordance with law it can be taken that the decree has no existence at all and hence such decree cannot be executed and the Court below is justified in holding that the execution petition is not maintainable. The learned Counsel representing the respondent judgment-debtor also had drawn my attention to Order 20 Rule 4 (2) and also Order 14 Rule 2 C. P. C. and the learned Counsel also had further submitted that inasmuch as the judgment does not record any reasons it is not a judgment in the eye of law. The learned Counsel representing the respondent judgment-debtor also had drawn my attention to Order 20 Rule 4 (2) and also Order 14 Rule 2 C. P. C. and the learned Counsel also had further submitted that inasmuch as the judgment does not record any reasons it is not a judgment in the eye of law. The learned Counsel also had relied upon several decisions on this aspect. The learned Counsel had placed much reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Aziz Ahmed Khan vs. A. Patel wherein it was observed as follows:"while pronouncing the judgments the Courts should apply their minds to the facts of the case and the points at issue and give a reasoned judgment thereon after duly evaluating the evidence adduced and afte considering the contentions of the parties judgment not in conformity with Order 20 Rule 4 (2) C. P. C. is not a judgment at all. "the learned Counsel also relied upon decisions in Sulochana Devi vs. Gobinda chandra at paras 12 and 19; Neemabai vs. Gyanbai at para 9; Syed Haisannulla vs. Ahmad Beig7 at para 6 and also in Bhavan vaja vs. Solanki Hanuji at para 19. Tht learned Counsel further had contended that inasmuch as the judgment is a cryptic judgment it does not answer the expression judgment within the meaning of Civil procedure Code. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the elaborate submissions made by both the Counsel and also after perusing several decisions relied upon by both parties I am of the considered opinion that the order of the Court below is not sustainable for the reasons stated infra. It is well settled that when a decree is made by a Court of competent jurisdiction unless it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction; the executing Court is bound to execute the decree and it cannot go behind the decree. Apart from it here is a case where the respondent judgment-debtor had made an unsuccessful attempt to get the decree set aside but however he was not successful and the matter was carried in revision and the said civil revision petition was also dismissed. However, it is also brought to my notice by the learned Counsel representing the respondent judgment-debtor that the petitioners filed LA. No. 1593 of 1996 in O. S. No. 1641 of 1985 under sec. However, it is also brought to my notice by the learned Counsel representing the respondent judgment-debtor that the petitioners filed LA. No. 1593 of 1996 in O. S. No. 1641 of 1985 under sec. 151 C. P. C. praying to pass a judgment and decree as per law in O. S. No. 1641 of 1985. In para 3 of the said order the learned vii Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad had observed as follows:"the judgment dated 7-12-1988 is an ex parte judgment. The petitioners who are the decreeholders filed E. P. No. 87 of 1991 for execution of the decree. The respondent/defendant took part in the execution proceedings wherein he raised an objection that the decree is not a valid decree and is not an executable decree. On 10-11-1995 my learned predecessor in office dismissed the E. P. holding that the e. P. is not maintainable against the judgment-debtor/defendant and accordingly the E. P. was dismissed on 10-11-1995. The applications filed by the respondent/defendant in I. A. No. 1163 of 1992 under Sec. 5 of the limitation Act along with an application under Order 9 Rule 13 c. P. C. was dismissed on 4-5-1994 by the learned predecessor in office. Since the steps taken by the respondent/ defendant in setting aside the decree was refused, the ex parte decree to be in operation. But when the decree was sought to be executed and on the objection raised by the respondent judgment-debtor in the execution petition the E. P. was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners herein ought to have preferred revision against the orders passed in E. P. 87/91 instead of filing the present application. I am of the view that the present application is not maintainable and as such the same is hereby rejected. "from the said order it is dear that the Court below felt that in view of dismissal of the execution petition as not maintainable the remedy available to the petitioners is to prefer a revision. I do not think that this order will come in the way of the petitioners in any way. "from the said order it is dear that the Court below felt that in view of dismissal of the execution petition as not maintainable the remedy available to the petitioners is to prefer a revision. I do not think that this order will come in the way of the petitioners in any way. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the order passed by the VII Assistant Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad in E. P. No. 87 of 991 in O. S. No. 1641 of 1985 dated 10-11-1995 cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside and accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed but in the circumstances each party to bear their own costs.