Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 14-5-99, passed by ADJ, Murwara in T. Execution Case No. 1/97. ( 2. ) PLAINTIFF/applicant instituted C. S. No. 136/91 in the Court of ADJ, Kishangarhbas (Rajasthan) against non-applicant. The suit was decreed, a preliminary decree dated 11-8-94 was drawn. Subsequently, a final decree dated 19-9-94 was passed by the Court. The decree had been transferred for execution against non-applicant No. 4 Anand Goyanka, resident of Murwara as the property mortgaged by him is situated at Katni. Non-applicant Anand Goyanka resisted the execution by filing application under Sections 47 and 151, CPC. It has been contended that C. S. No. 136/91 in the Court of ADJ, Kishangarhbas was proceeded ex parts against the non-applicant. Summons/ notice of proceedings in the said suit were not served on him. The Court below vide order dated 14-5-99 allowed the objection and held that decree being nullity could not be enforced against non-applicant Anand Goyanka. Being aggrieved the present revision has been filed. ( 3. ) PLAINTIFF/applicant-STATE Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur instituted C. S. No. 136/91 against non-applicant Anand Goyanka and three others. It was stated that the property mortgaged by non-applicant Anand Goyanka is situated at Katni. Non-applicant Anand Goyanka was proceeded exparte in C. S. No. 136/91. A preliminary decree as well as final decree were passed by the Court in the said suit. The contention of non-applicant Anand Goyanka is that he was not served with summons-notice of the suit at any stage, i. e. , prior to the preliminary decree dated 11-8-94 and final decree dated 19-9-94. Without perusing the record of C. S. No. 136/91 the Executing Court to whom the decree was transferred, has allowed the application under Section 47 of CPC and held that in the event of non-service the proceeding, exparte against the non-applicant Anand Goyanka was a nullity. The question arises whether on an application under Section 47, CPC before the Executing Court, such an adjudication could he sought. Section 47 of CPC reads, all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the 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. Section 47 of CPC reads, all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the 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. Thus, the application under Sections 47 and 151, CPC as filed by the non-applicant Anand Goyanka was not in relation to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. It has been stated that for non-service of summons/notice in C. S. No. 136/91, the Court of ADJ, Kishangarhbas ought not to have proceeded ex parte against the non-applicant. In essence the dispute relates to one under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC. ( 4. ) IN the circumstance, the application under Sections 47 and 151, CPC could not have been allowed declaring the decree passed by a Competent Court of jurisdiction in C. S. No. 136/91 as a nullity and inexecutable against non-applicant - Anand Goyanka. ( 5. ) IF the Court below for any reason has come to the conclusion that there was no service of summons/notice to non-applicant - Anand Goyanka, it should have granted time to non-applicant for filing application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC before the Court concerned for seeking relief of setting aside the decree passed against him. ( 6. ) ACCORDINGLY, order impugned passed by ADJ is improper and suffers from material irregularity. Revision is allowed, the order impugned is set aside. However, non-applicant Anand Goyanka is permitted to file proper application before the Court concerned within a period of 30 days from this order. With this revision is disposed of. No order as to costs.