JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—Ram Dulari, judgment debtor has filed this revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the orders of learned Senior Sub Judge, Una whereby her objections to the execution of the judgment and decree of that court dated 22nd September, 1984 were dismissed. Brief facts : 2. Decree holder filed a suit before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Una in the year 1974 for possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 142 min measuring 3 Kanals 3 marlas which was in illegal possession of judgment debtor Ram Dulari. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on September 22, 1984. 3. Dis-satisfied judgment debtor filed first appeal which too was dismissed. Her second appeal was also proved to be unsuccessful. Thereafter, execution petition was filed by the decree-holder in which certain objections were raised, and were dismissed. 4. Dis-satisfied, judgment debtor filed a revision petition in this Court ii\ terms of Civil Revision No. 82 of 1999. This court observed "the objections were only frivolous and they have been made only to delay the effective enforcement of the decree." 5. Judgment debtor still not satisfied filed objections to the effect that "judgment debtor has improved the title and status from a trespasser to a co-sharer in Khasra No. 1309 by purchasing property of Himmat son of Sansar Chand, Dharam Chand son of Basant Ram and Leelawati widow of Basant Ram by a registered sale deed No, 1584 dated September 20, 1999" and, therefore, has become joint owner in possession with the decree holder after passing of the decree and decree thus has become unexecutable. These objections were dismissed by the Executing Court on January 11, 2001 holding that "there is nothing on record to show that the tenancy of the decree-holder has been extinguished against the owners and possession has been delivered to them and then they have sold the suit land in favour of the judgment debtor. Therefore, there is no force in the objections and the same are dismissed with special costs of Rs. 300". 6. Un-satisfied, judgment debtor is in this revision petition. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Therefore, there is no force in the objections and the same are dismissed with special costs of Rs. 300". 6. Un-satisfied, judgment debtor is in this revision petition. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Decree-holder in reply to the objections of the judgment debtor categorically stated that any sale deed, which might have been executed in favour of judgment debtor, is illegal inasmuch as vendor had no right or title to sell the land of the decree-holder. It is specifically pleaded that the land, subject matter of dispute, was carved out from old Khasra No. 142 regarding which decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff was passed. Perusal of the decree shows that decree for possession of the land subject matter of dispute was infact passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant judgment debtor. It is not the case of judgment debtor that he had purchased any part of this land from the decree-holder. 9. Ordinarily, the executing court is bound to execute the decree and cannot go behind the decree unless the decree passed by it is nullity. Even, if a decree is erroneously passed or under wrong impression of law, it cannot be said to be nullity. 10. In the present case, I am satisfied that the objections were filed by the judgment debtor simply to delay the execution of decree which was passed as far back as in the year 1984. There is no error of law in the order passed by learned executing court. There is no merit in the petition. 11. Revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,000. C.M.P. No. 49 of 2001 12. In view of the order passed in the main revision petition, the interim order dated February 16, 2000 stands vacated. The application is disposed of. Revision dismissed.