JUDGMENT B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. : In this Civil Revision Petition challenge is made to the order dated 20.08.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar dismissing petitioner’s application under Section 47, C.P.C. filed in Execution Case No.8 of 2010. 2.Petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company having its registered office at Plot No.1, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar-7, Dist: Khurda. The opposite parties are the partners of an unregistered Partnership firm, carrying on business in the name and style of “Super Impex”. Office of the said Partnership firm is situated at Dared, Jamnagar-361004, Gujarat. In the year 2009, the partners of the aforesaid firm as plaintiffs filed a suit bearing Summary Suit No.25 of 2009 before the Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Jamnagar, Gujarat for recovery of money against he present petitioner-company as defendant claiming inter alia that the petitioner-company is engaged in manufacturing of LPG valve etc. and used to purchase assorted brass rods from opposite parties-firm for their business. In one occasion, the petitioner purchased assorted brass rods weighing 11066.550 kg @ Rs.204.50 per kg., for a total worth of Rs.24,98,581/- from the opposite party-firm. The plaintiffs-opposite parties’ further case is that said goods were duly delivered to the petitioner-company through England Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. Against the said transaction, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing Cheque No.154667 dated 01.08.2009 for Rs.24,98,581/- drawn on the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Bhubaneswar. However, the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement of “Insufficient Opening Balance”. Thereafter, opposite parties filed a Civil Suit bearing Summary Suit No.25 of 2009 for recovery of their dues. Despite service of suit summons on the petitioner-company, the company could not appear in the case due to several reasons which were beyond its control. The suit before the Jamnagar Court was decreed ex parte against the petitioner. Opposite parties thereafter initiated Execution Case before the Jamnagar Court which has ultimately been transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar for execution of the said ex parte decree passed in the aforesaid suit. The petitioner after getting notice of the execution case appeared and filed objection under Section 47, CPC for dismissal of the execution case with various grounds including the question of maintainability of execution case which was registered as I.A. No.773 of 2010 before the learned Civil (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. The petitioner after getting notice of the execution case appeared and filed objection under Section 47, CPC for dismissal of the execution case with various grounds including the question of maintainability of execution case which was registered as I.A. No.773 of 2010 before the learned Civil (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar after hearing both parties has dismissed I.A. No.733 of 2010 and posted the Execution Case No.8 of 2010 for hearing by order dated 20.08.2011. Hence, the present civil revision petition. 3.Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) is per se illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and beyond the settled principles of law and the Court below has committed serious irregularity in dismissing the application under Section 47, CPC on the ground that the Executing Court has no authority to go beyond the decree. The settled position of law is that a decree obtained by an unregistered partnership firm is a nullity and objection to the executability of the said decree can be raised in the execution case. The decree obtained by unregistered firm in contravention of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act is a nullity and cannot be executed. Such objection can be raised at the stage of execution. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunderlal and Sons v. Yagendra Nath Singh and another, AIR 1976 CALCUTTA 471. The learned Court below has also made gross error by dismissing the application under Section 47, CPC as the land, building and machineries of M/s. Konark Cylinders and Containers Pvt. Ltd. situated at Plot No.12, Sector-A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar in the district of Khurda cannot be attached in view of Section 60, CPC as the said property is not auctionable. As the owner of the said property is IDCO and IDCO being not a party t the proceeding, the very institution of suit was bad in law in view of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. There is no dispute to the fact that “Super Impex” was an unregistered firm and the present opposite parties are the partners of the unregistered firm. In support of his contention, Mr. There is no dispute to the fact that “Super Impex” was an unregistered firm and the present opposite parties are the partners of the unregistered firm. In support of his contention, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel drew attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph-13 of the plaint in which it is stated that the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs have also been produced along with the “documentary evidence list”. As per the documentary evidence list, the plaintiff-opposite parties submitted various documents including copy of retail invoice dated 23.06.2009 in support of the claim made in the suit and requested the Court to admit and accept the same. Referring to those documents, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the transaction of sale and purchase was between the unregistered firm “Super Impex” and petitioner-company. Therefore, the suit filed by the partners of the unregistered firm in their personal capacity is also not maintainable. In support of his contention, Mr. Mohanty relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Adhar v. Ram Kirat Tiwari, AIR 1981 ALLAHABAD 405. 4.Mr. S.S. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that the present revision petition filed under Section 115, CPC is not maintainable. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Lal Mehra v. Ishwar Dass, AIR 1962 SC 646 , he submitted that trial Court when moved under Section 47, CPC in an execution case pending before it, passed the impugned order and therefore, it has exercised jurisdiction which is vested in it by law. Hence the order cannot be faulted with. In the instant case, since there is no erroneous approach on the part of the learned trial Court with regard to exercise of jurisdiction vested in it, Clause (b) of Section 115, CPC is not attracted. Therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. In the instant case Clause (c) of Section 115, CPC is also not attracted as the petitioner has not been able to satisfy that the trial Court either did not take into consideration the material facts or considered the material facts placed before it illegally. Therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. 5.Mr. Therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. In the instant case Clause (c) of Section 115, CPC is also not attracted as the petitioner has not been able to satisfy that the trial Court either did not take into consideration the material facts or considered the material facts placed before it illegally. Therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. 5.Mr. S.S. Das further submitted that in the petition filed under Section 47, CPC, the petitioner has not taken the ground that the suit is hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. Such question is a question of fact and law and the Executing Court cannot look into it. The suit is not hit by Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Miraj Marketing Corporation v. M/s. Vishaka Engineering and another, 115 (2004) DELHI LAW TIMES 471 (DB), it was submitted that the partners of the unregistered firm are competent to maintain the civil suit. Referring to paragraph-4 of the present civil revision petition, Mr. Das also submitted that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the learned trial Court; but the petitioner did not avail the same. The other reason given by the petitioner for not appearing in the suit as stated in paragraph-4 is that very initiation of suit was bad under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act and therefore the suit is not maintainable in the eye of law. The petitioner has not appeared in the suit for which ex parte decree was passed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the legality of the suit in the execution proceeding. 6.It is further submitted that the learned Executing Court after taking into consideration various stands taken in the application made under Section 47, CPC and after hearing the judgment debtor passed the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the judgment-debtor holding that under Section 42, CPC the Court executing a decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decree as if it has been passed by itself. Since the summary suit was passed against the petitioner through the Managing Director, the objection to the extent that the execution case is not in proper form is not acceptable. It was further held that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. Since the summary suit was passed against the petitioner through the Managing Director, the objection to the extent that the execution case is not in proper form is not acceptable. It was further held that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. It was submitted that since the impugned order dated 20.08.2011 does not suffer from any of the deficiencies as enumerated in Clause (a), (b) and (c) of Section 115, CPC, it does not warrant any interference by this Court. The decree is very much executable as the restrictions under Section 60, CPC do not apply to the facts of the present case; on the contrary under Section 60(1), CPC, the land building, goods can be attached. 7.Mr. Das, further submitted that in the civil revision petition the judgment-debtor raised two issues which are against the letter and spirit of the application under Section 47, CPC. Though in paragraph 3 of Section 47 application the judgment-debtor-petitioner states that the amount awarded/decree passed is not within its knowledge, in paragraph 4 of the revision petition it states that it could not appear in the suit and contest the same knowing that the suit is not maintainable. Since the statements in paragraph 3 of Section 47 application and the statements made in paragraph-4 of the civil revision petition are contradictory in nature, this Court should not allow such approach of the petitioner in exercise of its power under Section 115, CPC. The other point raised in civil revision is that the suit is hit by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act as “Super Impex” is not a registered partnership firm for which the suit is a nullity. This aspect was never before the executing Court. In a civil revision the petitioner can neither be allowed to improve upon his case nor can take a stand contrary to what it has raised before the trial Court. It is submitted that the plaintiffs were doing business in the name and style of “Super Impex” but the suit has not been filed by such firm. The cause title, the averments and the affidavit/verification amply demonstrate that the suit has been filed by three individuals who incidentally are doing business in the name and style of “Super Impex”. The invoices might have been raised by Super Impex but the suit is not filed by the said firm. The cause title, the averments and the affidavit/verification amply demonstrate that the suit has been filed by three individuals who incidentally are doing business in the name and style of “Super Impex”. The invoices might have been raised by Super Impex but the suit is not filed by the said firm. Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act is attracted only if the suit is filed by a firm which is not registered. The plaint averment nowhere discloses that the plaintiffs have filed a suit in the capacity of partners of a firm. Paragraph-9 of the plaint which was pressed into service by the petitioner cannot improve its case as the averments made therein were only for the purpose of jurisdiction of the learned Court at Jamnagar. Therefore, the point which regard to applicability of Section 69(2), CPC does not become a point of law only. If by adducing unimpeachable evidence the petitioner had proved that the plaintiffs filed the suit in the capacity of partners of a firm and not in individual capacity and the Court had come to a finding that the suit was filed by an unregistered firm, then it could be said that this question is a question of law and can be raised at any stage. Placing reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Miraj Marketing Corporation v. M/s. Vishaka Engineering and another (supra), Mr. Das, further argued that when a firm is incapable of instituting a suit, it has to be instituted in the name of the Proprietor. In the instant case, therefore, when the suit was filed by three individuals who are incidentally doing business in the name of the firm in question, the suit cannot be said to have been hit by any of the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. If the stand of the petitioner is accepted at this stage, then the defaulters can get away with their liability to pay by taking such frivolous stands. Concluding his argument, Mr. Das, prayed for dismissal of the present civil revision petition. 8.On the rival contentions of the parties, the following questions fall for consideration by this Court :- (i)Whether this revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC is maintainable in law ? (ii)Whether the impugned order dated 20.08.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Concluding his argument, Mr. Das, prayed for dismissal of the present civil revision petition. 8.On the rival contentions of the parties, the following questions fall for consideration by this Court :- (i)Whether this revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC is maintainable in law ? (ii)Whether the impugned order dated 20.08.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar rejecting the petitioner’s application made under Section 47, CPC is sustainable in law on the ground that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree ? 9.So far as question No.(i) concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had raised specific ground in its application filed under Section 47 CPC that the ex parte decree passed in the suit is a nullity. As it appears from the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) proceeded with the footing that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. There is no dispute over the above legal settled position. However, where a petition under Section 47 CPC was filed before the Executing Court raising a question that the ex parte decree is a nullity, the Executing Court is required to adjudicate such issue and cannot reject the said petition on the ground that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. Thus, the Executing Court has acted illegally with material irregularity. Proviso to Section 115 CPC inserted in 2002 Amendment Act is also satisfied because had the issue relating to the question that the decree passed in the suit is a nullity been answered by the Executing Court in favour of the petitioner applying for revision, it would have finally disposed of the execution proceeding. Therefore, the civil revision petition is maintainable. 10.The question No.(iii) is whether the impugned order is sustainable in law. Before this Court the petitioner basically raises two questions. The first question is that the decree passed ex parte by the Trial. Court is a nullity. In support of this contention, Mr. Mohanty referred to the list of documents filed along with the plaint. It was submitted that the transaction of purchase and sale in respect of which the suit had been filed was effected by the unregistered firm “Super Impex” and the said firm being unregistered one cannot sue the petitioner in a suit because the same is hit by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. It was submitted that the transaction of purchase and sale in respect of which the suit had been filed was effected by the unregistered firm “Super Impex” and the said firm being unregistered one cannot sue the petitioner in a suit because the same is hit by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. It was also alternatively submitted that since the transaction was between Super Impex and the petitioner, the partners of Super Impex have no locus standi to maintain suit in their individual capacity. However, referring to the plaint, Mr. Das, learned counsel for opposite parties submitted that the cause title, affidavit and verification amply demonstrate that the suit has been filed by three individuals who incidentally are doing business in the name and style of “Super Impex”. Therefore, Mr. Das submitted that Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act has no application to the present case. 11.Since, both the parties referred to the plaint in support of their rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to such plaint. Perusal of the plaint reveals that plaint bearing Summary Suit No.25 of 2009 was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jamnagar by three individuals namely, Suresh Gangadas Bhai Patel, Mahesh Gangadas Bhai Patel and Atul Gangadas Bhai Patel as plaintiffs who are doing business in the name and style of Super Impex. The affidavit appended to the suit is sworn to by the above said plaintiffs. In the body of the plaint, nowhere they have admitted that they are carrying on business in a partnership in the name and style of “Super Impex”. 12.At this juncture, it is necessary, to extract herein-in-below paragraph-13 of the plaint and the documentary evidence filed along with the plaint. “13. the Documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiff have also been produced along with the Documentary Evidence List. The copies of the plaint for the Defendant, Vakalatnama and Memo of Address are also produced herewith. xxxxxx DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE LIST The plaintiff most humbly submits the following documents in support of the suit and request to admit and exhibit the same in the matter. No. Details of Document Date of document Pages of document 01. Office copy of Retail Invoice No.00302. 23/06/2009 01 02. Consignor Copy of Consignment Note No.2409 349X of Inland Road Transport (P) Ltd. 23/06/2009 01 03. No. Details of Document Date of document Pages of document 01. Office copy of Retail Invoice No.00302. 23/06/2009 01 02. Consignor Copy of Consignment Note No.2409 349X of Inland Road Transport (P) Ltd. 23/06/2009 01 03. Original Cheque No.154667 drawn on State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Bhubaneswar 01/08/2009 01 04. Original Cheque Return Memo issued by State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar 30/11/2009 01 05. Original Cheque Return advice issued by Axix Bank, Service Branch, Bhubaneswar 30/11/2009 01 06. Attested Partnership Deed of Super Impex 13/12/2004 04 Plaintiff herein reserve right to produce further documents as and when necessary to do so in the interest of justice. Place : Jamnagar Sd/- Date : 14/12/2009 Sd/- Sd/- 13.In the ‘documentary evidence list’ dated 14.12.2009 appended to the plaint, the plaintiffs mentioned the list of documents filed by them and requested to admit and accept the same in the matter. Sl. No.6 of the said documentary list is the attested unregistered Partnership Deed of Super Impex executed on 13.12.2004. Thus, this shows that all the three plaintiffs in the plaint executed the partnership deed on 13.12.2004 to carry on business in partnership in the name and style of “Super Impex”. 14.In view of filing of plaintiffs’ own document along with the plaint and placing reliance upon those documents by them with a request to admit the same and to mark those as Exhibts, there is no further need to adduce any evidence to prove that the plaintiffs were carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of “Super Impex”. 15.The next question is whether the transaction of sale and purchase in respect of which Summary Suit No.25 of 2009 was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), was entered into between the petitioner-Company and “Super Impex” or it is between the three plaintiffs in their individual capacity and the petitioner-Company. Serial No.1 of the list of documents is the Office Copy of Retail Invoice No.00302 dated 23.06.2009. Perusal of this invoice reveals that it is a Retail Invoice raised by “Super Impex” in the name of petitioner-Company against sale of 25,000 Round Assorted Brass Rod for Rs.24,98,581/-. Sl. No.2 of the list of documents is copy of the Consignment Note No.2409 349X of Inland Road Transport (P) Ltd. dated 23.06.2009. Perusal of this invoice reveals that it is a Retail Invoice raised by “Super Impex” in the name of petitioner-Company against sale of 25,000 Round Assorted Brass Rod for Rs.24,98,581/-. Sl. No.2 of the list of documents is copy of the Consignment Note No.2409 349X of Inland Road Transport (P) Ltd. dated 23.06.2009. This shows that the Consignor is “Super Impex” and the Consignee is Konark Cylinders and Containers Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar, who is the petitioner in the present case. Serial No.3 of list of documents is the original Cheque No.154667 drawn on State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Bhubaneswar dated 01.08.2009. On perusal of such Cheque, it is seen that the same has been issued in favour of “Super Impex” for Rs.24,98,581/- by Konark Cylinders and Containers Pvt. Ltd. - the petitioner Company. 16.In view of the aforesaid documents which have been submitted along with the plaint and relied upon by the plaintiffs in support of their contention, this Court is of the view that no further evidence is needed to prove/establish that the transaction in question in respect of which Summary Suit No.25 of 2009 was instituted in the Court below was entered into between the partnership firm Super Impex and the petitioner-Company and the said firm admittedly is an unregistered firm. Hence, if any suit for recovery of money with regard to transaction of purchase and sale entered into between Super Impex and petitioner-Company is to be filed the same should be filed by Super Impex and not by the present plaintiffs in their individual capacity. Since Super Impex is an unregistered firm, the suit cannot be maintained as it is hit by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. Therefore, since the above three plaintiffs are carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of “Super Impex”, they cannot maintain a suit against the petitioner-Company for recovery of money due from petitioner-company in view of bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. 17.Law is well-settled that what cannot be done directly, the same cannot be done indirectly. 18.Law is also well settled that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and is not permitted to act in contravention of the prescribed provisions. Other methods or modes of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. 17.Law is well-settled that what cannot be done directly, the same cannot be done indirectly. 18.Law is also well settled that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and is not permitted to act in contravention of the prescribed provisions. Other methods or modes of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim “Expressio unius est exclusion alteris”, meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following other course is not permissible. (See Taylor v. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch. D. 426, Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 , Ram Phal Kundu v. Kamla Sharma; and Indian Banks Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service, AIR 2004 SC 2615 ). 19.If decree is a nullity such stand can be taken/raised at any stage. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Adhar v. Ram Kirat Tiwari (supra) held that where two plaintiffs carrying out business of manufacturing bricks in partnership, filed a suit to recover the amount due to the partnership from the defendant for the purchase of bricks by him, the suit would not be maintainable on account of the bar under Section 69(2) because their partnership was not a registered one. 20.At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment in the case of Sunderlal and Sons (supra), wherein the Calcutta High Court has held that in view of the language of Section 69 a plaint filed by an un-registered firm would not be a plaint at all and all proceedings thereunder will be proceedings without jurisdiction. Objection in this regard can be raised at the time of execution. 21.The judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Miraj Marketing Corporation v. M/s. Vishaka Engineering and another (supra) relied upon by the plaintiffs does not support their case as the facts of that case are completely different from the present case. That was a case of proprietorship, where the Court held that the proprietorship firm has no legal entity like a registered firm. The suit cannot be instituted in the name of an un-registered firm and the said suit is to be instituted in the name of the proprietor. That was a case of proprietorship, where the Court held that the proprietorship firm has no legal entity like a registered firm. The suit cannot be instituted in the name of an un-registered firm and the said suit is to be instituted in the name of the proprietor. A proprietorship concern is not governed by any specific statute like a Partnership Act. There is no provision under any Statute that the proprietorship firm shall be registered like a partnership firm. In the instant case, since the activities of a partnership firm are governed by the Partnership Act, the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Miraj Marketing Corporation v. M/s. Vishaka Engineering and another (supra) has no application to the case of the plaintiffs-opposite parties. 22.In the petition filed under Section 47, CPC though the petitioner has raised a point that the decree passed is a nullity, it has not taken specific stand, which has been taken in the present revision petition and the same goes to root of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice the matter is remitted back to the Executing Court with liberty to the petitioner-Company as well as the opposite parties to raise all the points before the Executing Court in support of their contentions and the Executing Court is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the observations made in the preceding paragraphs. 23.With the above observation and direction, the revision petition is disposed of. Revision petition disposed of.