Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The present revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 9.8.1999 passed by the learned Assistant Judge in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 48 of 1999 as well as the order below Review Application No. 3 of 1999 dated 30th October, 1999, whereby the appeal is dismissed and the review application is also dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case appear to be that there was settlement in the suit between the plaintiff and the defendant on 14.6.1994 in Regular Civil Suit No. 209. The consent decree was passed by the Court concerned. As per the said consent decree, the possession of the property was to be handed over by the stipulated date and it was also mentioned that if there was delay in handing over of the possession, Rs. 100/- per day would be payable. It appears that thereafter the property in question was purchased by the petitioner from the respondent and in the sale dated 8.3.1996 and in the sale deed there was a recital clause that any term of settlement as was submitted before the Court would not operate and now there will not be any question of implementation of the terms of settlement. In spite of the aforesaid sale deed, the respondent filed an execution application before the trial Court, seeking recovery of the amount of compensation as per the terms and conditions of the settlement. The Executing Court issued warrants for recovery of the amount, since the petitioner did not appear. The matter was carried in appeal, which also came to be dismissed, against which review application was preferred and the said revision application has also been dismissed. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 3. Heard Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pandya, learned Counsel for respondent. 4. It appears from the judgement and order of the Court below that the error has been committed on the face of it in considering the scope and ambit of the execution proceedings. It is true that once a consent decree is passed such consent decree would be executable, but at the same time, the mode of execution would be the same as provided under CPC. It is true that once a consent decree is passed such consent decree would be executable, but at the same time, the mode of execution would be the same as provided under CPC. If in response to the execution proceedings, the judgement debtor appears and shows to the Court that by way of subsequent event either the decree was satisfied or there was any waiver of the rights under the consent decree, such would be required to be examined by the Executing Court and if the Executing Court is not satisfied about the stand put forward by the judgement debtor and finds that the decree is not satisfied, it has to further proceed for execution of the decree. 5. Whereas, in the present case, the approach of the Court below namely; the appellate Court is that unless the consent decree is modified, it would be executable. In my view, such approach is erroneous on the face of it, inasmuch as the subsequent event on the aspects of satisfaction of the decree or otherwise falls within the jurisdiction and the scope of exercise of power by the Executing Court and it would be erroneous approach on the pat of the Executing Court to decline the consideration of the aspect as satisfaction of the decree on the ground that until the decree is modified, it would remain executable. 6. The aforesaid can also be said to be a jurisdictional error in exercising the power by the executing Court, which ought to have been considered by the lower Court, but has not been considered and, therefore, it would be a case for exercise of power under Section 115 of CPC. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for both the sides submitted that they have no information as to whether the amount is permitted to be withdrawn or is lying with the Court or not. 8. Be that as it may, the effect has to follow as per the law. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgement and order of the appellate Court is quashed and set aside with the direction that the matter shall stand restored to the Executing Court for examination of the aspect of satisfaction or waiver of the decree by the sale deed entered into between the parties. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgement and order of the appellate Court is quashed and set aside with the direction that the matter shall stand restored to the Executing Court for examination of the aspect of satisfaction or waiver of the decree by the sale deed entered into between the parties. After the said aspect is examined and decided by the Executing Court, it would be open to the Executing Court to permit withdrawal of the amount, if lying with the Court. In the event the withdrawal is already permitted, the Executing Court shall pass consequential order for redeposit of the amount and to appropriate as per the order it may pass at the conclusion of the said proceedings. 10. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.