Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.:- The present writ petition has been filed against the order passed on 6-11-2006 by A.D.J. Sultanpur (O.P.No.1) in execution case No. 06 of 2003; Sohan Lal Vs. Jabbir & Others. Being without jurisdiction as under the execution proceedings the executing court is required to execute the decree/award in terms of judgment and decree. Through the liability for payment of compensation amount has been fastened upon the petitioner. 2. Sohan Lal and Manohara Devi (O.P.No. 2 & 4) filed a claim petition No. 177 of 1998(Sohan Lal & others Vs. Haseeb & Others) for compensation of Rs. 8 Lacs on account of death of their father(Late Bhagwan Deen) which was caused by rashly and negligently driving of the Truck No. U.P.65-H/5527.The Owner(Jabbir) and the Driver(Sri Mohd. Hasib) of the vehicle denied the occurrence of accident by Truck No. U.P.65-H/5527 in their written statements. 3. The petitioner/Assurance Company also stated in its written statement that claimant never filed any documents and details relating to establish that the vehicle was insured. The claim petition was decided by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J. III, Sultanpur on 11-01-2001.The claim petition was allowed and a sum of Rs. 1,28,000/- alongwith 10% interest p.a. from the date of judgment till the date of payment was awarded to the claimants against the owner of the vehicle namely Sri Jabbir. Neither the claimants nor the Opp. Parties filed any documentary evidence relating to the insurance of the vehicle Truck No. U.P.65-H/5527. As such in the absence of the said documents issue was decided negatively. 4. After passing the award the claimants instituted the execution proceedings U/S. 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1998 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J. III Sultanpur by way of filing execution case No. 06 of 2003(Sohan Lal Vs. Jabbir & Others). The Owner of the vehicle Truck No. U.P.65-H/5527 also filed Review Petition No. 5/2001 before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J. III Sultanpur. A recovery certificate was issued for the recovery of the entire awarded amount of Rs. 1,28,000/- alongwith 10% interest p.a. from the date of award till the date of realisation. 5. The owner also filed the F.A.F.O. 224 of 2003 against the judgment/order dated 11-1-2001 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J. III Sultanpur, which is still pending . 6. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6 Nov. 2006 passed in execution case no. 1,28,000/- alongwith 10% interest p.a. from the date of award till the date of realisation. 5. The owner also filed the F.A.F.O. 224 of 2003 against the judgment/order dated 11-1-2001 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J. III Sultanpur, which is still pending . 6. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6 Nov. 2006 passed in execution case no. 6 of 2003 by the Additional District judge, Sultanpur., where by a direction has been be issued to the petitioner to satisfy the decree. Where as the claim petition has been rejected against the petitioner. 7. In support of his submission the petitioner cited the following case :- Rameshwar Das GuptaVs. State of U.P. And Others [(1996) 5 S.C. 728] in which the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that ?It is well settled legal position that an executing court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution. It gets jurisdiction only to execute the order in accordance with the procedure laid down under Order 21 C.P.C. ? 8. Therefore I am of the view, once the claim petition has been rejected against the petitioner it cannot be called upon to satisfy the decree passed in the claim petition. Under the circumstances, I hereby quash the order dated 6 Nov. 2006 passed in execution case no. 6 of 2003 by the Additional District judge, Sultanpur. However the execution court is at liberty to proceed for execution of award passed in claim petition in the terms of award. 9. With the aforesaid observation the Writ Petition is disposed off finally.