JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Kshetresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.S. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1/1 and 1/2. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 16.8.2014 and decree dated 22.8.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Janupur in Misc. Application No. Nil of 2014 arising out of SCC Suit No. 33 of 1981 and order dated 3.9.2014 passed in Revision No. Nil of 2014 by the Additional District Judge - II, Jaunpur. 3. Vide order dated 16.8.2014, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘the CPC’) had been rejected holding it to be not maintainable, whereas by the subsequent order dated 3.9.2014, the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.8.2014 has been dismissed. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the father of respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/7 filed SCC Suit No. 33 of 1981 (Abdul Mannan v. Jamaluddin) in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Jaunpur. The suit was decreed on 19.2.1986. Aggrieved petitioner, preferred Revision No. 40 of 1986 and the revision was dismissed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Jaunpur vide his order dated 18.8.1987. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17455 of 1987 (Jamaluddin v. Abdul Mannan) before this Court. In the aforesaid writ petition, an interim order was granted by this Court on 11.9.1987. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 22.1.2008. Prior to the dismissal of the writ petition, an application seeking execution of the decree was filed before the Court below, which was numbered as Execution Case No. 12 of 1987. After dismissal of the writ petition, the execution case proceeded and thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC before the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jaunpur. In the application, the petitioner had raised three objections, i.e., (i) the Court below, which has passed the decree, had no jurisdiction to prosecute the suit; (ii) the notice was issued on the wrong address of the petitioner; and (iii) the landlord has not satisfied his part of obligation under the decree. 5. In the application, the petitioner had raised three objections, i.e., (i) the Court below, which has passed the decree, had no jurisdiction to prosecute the suit; (ii) the notice was issued on the wrong address of the petitioner; and (iii) the landlord has not satisfied his part of obligation under the decree. 5. The learned Judge rejected the petitioner’s application holding it to be not maintainable on the ground that the provisions of Section 47 of the CPC are not attracted in a Small Causes Suit. Aggrieved petitioner, filed revision before the learned District Judge, Jaunpur, taking a specific ground that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application holding it to be not maintainable on the ground of non-applicability of Section 47 of the CPC. The revisional Court, without addressing itself on the question as to whether the provisions of Section 47 of the CPC will be applicable or not, had dismissed the revision, taking note of the fact that the executing Court cannot go behind decree. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the provisions of Section 47 of the CPC are applicable in the execution proceedings arising out of decree passed in Small Causes Suits and the Courts below have erred in not addressing itself on the said issue. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Awasthi v. Uma Kant Tripathi, (2008(7) ALR 291 and Sudhir S. Halwasiya v. Additional District Judge, Lucknow and others, (2010 (80) ALR 714). 7. Here, in this case, the point of jurisdiction, plea of wrong address of the defendant and non-performance of obligation on the part of the plaintiff, which had been raised under Section 47 of the CPC, could be raised before the Judge, Small Causes Court, from where the suit was decreed, or even before the revisional Court. Now, after considering the entire material available on record and the points, which have been raised in the written statement as well as in the argument, a judgment has been rendered and the decree has been passed against the petitioner, which has become final between the parties. 8. Now, after considering the entire material available on record and the points, which have been raised in the written statement as well as in the argument, a judgment has been rendered and the decree has been passed against the petitioner, which has become final between the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon the judgments in Pradeep Kumar Awasthi (supra) and Sudhir S. Halwasiya (supra) submitted that the provisions of Section 47 of the CPC are applicable even in the decree passed by the Small Causes Court. 9. There may be substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, but I am of the considered opinion that the objection raised in the application filed under Section 47 of the CPC are misconceived, as these objections could be raised in the suit or even before the revisional Court and when suit has been decreed and the decree has become final, such objection cannot be taken in an application filed under Section 47 of the CPC. 10. It is well-settled that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Reference may be given to Om Prakash v. Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, 2000 All CJ 740 and Dr. Shamim Ahmad v. Shiv Nath Khandelwal, 2014 (122) RD 298. 11. So far as the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to non-consideration of applicability of Section 47 of the CPC by the Courts below is concerned, I am of the view that assuming the Court had not addressed itself on this issue, that will not invalidate the order passed by it, as even after remand to the Court below for considering this aspect, no substantial change in the final judgment is likely to come. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, I refuse to exercise my discretionary power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. —————