JUDGMENT : M.M. DAS, J. 1. As in both the aforesaid cases, legality of the order dated 6.3.2006 passed by the learned District Judge Sambalpur in C.M.A. No. 2 of 2004 is under challenge, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The impugned order was passed on an application under Section 47 CPC challenging the executability of the award sought to be executed in Execution Case No. 1 of 2004. The aforesaid C.M.A. was filed by the judgment-debtor. 3. Facts reveal that the present petitioner - decree holder entered into an agreement with the Government of Orissa represented by the Chief Engineer and Basin Manager, Upper Mahanadi, Burla and the Executive Engineer, who are opposite parties herein. The agreement was with regard to execution of the work Improvement to Canal Service Road of Baragarh Main Canal from R.D. 00 K.M. to 1600 KM under W.R.C.P. Package No. 9(a)." The said agreement contains an arbitration clause. One Shri N.C. Rout, retired Chief Engineer Irrigation was named in the agreement as adjudicator. It was provided that the dispute between the parties would be referred to the named adjudicator at the first instance and the decision of the adjudicator can be challenged before an arbitrator within 28 days from the date of such decision. It was further stipulated that if the adjudicator resigns or dies or is otherwise found unsuitable, the parties can replace him by another agreement. It was also laid down in the agreement that if the parties could not or did not agree to the choice of the changed adjudicator, the matter would be referred to the Chairman, Institution of Engineers (India) Orissa State Centre, Bhubaneswar to appoint an adjudicator as a replacement of the named adjudicator. The petitioner-decree holder, as per the terms of the agreement lodged the claim before the said Shri N.C. Rout, who expressed his inability to entertain the claim in absence of the consent of the State Government. Thereafter, the petitioner suggested three other names and asked the State Government to appoint one of them as adjudicator. The State Government did not agree on any of those three names. Hence, the petitioner approached the Chairman, Institution of Engineers (India) Orissa State Centre, Bhubaneswar, who, in turn, appointed one Shri R.C. Mohapatra as the adjudicator. Thereafter, the petitioner suggested three other names and asked the State Government to appoint one of them as adjudicator. The State Government did not agree on any of those three names. Hence, the petitioner approached the Chairman, Institution of Engineers (India) Orissa State Centre, Bhubaneswar, who, in turn, appointed one Shri R.C. Mohapatra as the adjudicator. The newly appointed adjudicator issued notice to the State Government to appear before him to take part in the proceeding. The State did not submit to his jurisdiction alleging that he had not been validly appointed. However, the said Shri R.C. Mohapatra went ahead with the arbitration proceeding and passed the award. The State did not challenge the said award before the arbitrator. The petitioner, in whose favour the award was passed, filed Execution Petition before the learned District Judge for executing the award. The Execution Petition was registered as Execution Case No.1 of 2004. The opposite parties were noticed to appear and- show cause as to why the award should not be executed against them. On receipt of the notice, they filed an application under Section 47 CPC on the ground that Shri N.C. Rout was the named adjudicator in the agreement to which the opposite parties were parties and the petitioner should have submitted to the jurisdiction of Shri Rout. As Shri Rout has not refused to arbitrate upon the dispute, it was not open to the petitioner to suggest three alternative names for appointment of adjudicator. Since Shri Rout was the agreed adjudicator, it was also not open to the petitioner to approach the Chairman, Institution of Engineers (India) Orissa State Centre, Bhubaneswar for appointment of another adjudicator in place of Shri Rout. The appointment of Shri R.C. Mohapatra as adjudicator, therefore, was without jurisdiction, for which Shri Mohapatra being not legally appointed as an adjudicator, he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. 4. The petitioner filed a counter to the said application under Section 47 C.P.C. questioning the maintainability of the petition. He claimed that as Shri Rout expressed his inability to arbitrate upon the dispute, the petitioner was perfectly within his right to take steps for his replacement by another adjudicator. He, therefore, sent the aforesaid three names to the State Government as provided under the agreement. He claimed that as Shri Rout expressed his inability to arbitrate upon the dispute, the petitioner was perfectly within his right to take steps for his replacement by another adjudicator. He, therefore, sent the aforesaid three names to the State Government as provided under the agreement. Since the State Government did not agree to any of those three names, the Chairman, Institution of Engineers (India) Orissa State Centre, Bhubaneswar, being the only authority competent to appoint an adjudicator as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner approached him, who appointed Shri R.C. Mohapatra as the adjudicator. Therefore, Shri Mohapatra was legally appointed as the adjudicator to pass the award. 5. The learned District Judge upon hearing the parties, interpreted the reply of Shri Rout to the petition, where he mentioned that he has received no information from the appropriate authority to arbitrate upon the dispute, to be not a refusal to arbitrate and, therefore, concluded that Shri Rout was not in a position to arbitrate till he received the consent of the State Government. Such reply, as held by the learned District Judge, cannot amount to refusal to arbitrate. The learned District Judge appears to have presumed that Shri Rout merely wanted completion of some formalities before entering into the arbitration. Referring to clause 26 of Section 3 of the agreement, which lays down the procedure for replacement of the adjudicator, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that in the instant case, admittedly, the adjudicator did not resign or die. There was also no agreement between the parties that the adjudicator was not fulfilling the functions in accordance with the provisions of the contract. Hence, he held that there was no scope for appointment of a new adjudicator in place of Shri Rout. Further, he held that the new adjudicator should be jointly appointed by the employer and the contractor. However, the finding of the learned District Judge that in the instant case, there was no step from the side of the petitioner for jointly appointing the new adjudicator is not correct as the facts reveal that the petitioner on receiving the reply from Shri Rout suggested three names to the State to appoint one of them as adjudicator. However, the State did not agree to any of those three names. However, the State did not agree to any of those three names. On a conspectus reading of the terms of the agreement, it is clear that Sri N.C. Rout being the named adjudicator in the agreement itself, he was not required to ask for the consent of the State for arbitrating the dispute which was raised before him by the petitioner. Hence, Sri Rout having not entertained the claim of the petitioner, the same amounts to refusal to act as the adjudicator between the parties as per the agreement. 6. This Court finds that the petitioner rightly approached the Chairman, Institution of Engineers (India) Orissa State Centre, Bhubaneswar for appointment of a new adjudicator, when the State did not agree to any of the three names proposed by the petitioner and the said Chairman was within his jurisdiction in appointing Shri R.C. Mohapatra as the new adjudicator, who also issued notice to the State on the claim of the petitioner, but the State chose not to appear before him and contest the matter. After he passed the award, the State without approaching the arbitrator against the award as per the agreement in the Execution Petition, came up with the application under Section 47 C.P.C. 7. It is a settled principle of law that the executing Court cannot go behind a decree which, in the instant case, is the award. However, the executing Court has jurisdiction under Section 47 C.P.C. to examine as to whether a decree is executable or not. For the above purpose, it has jurisdiction to interpret the decree. The validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceeding on the ground that the Court which passed the decree was lacking inherent jurisdiction in the sense that it could not have tried the case because the subject-matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction. 8. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the learned District Judge to examine the only question in the instant case as to whether the appointment of Shri R.C. Mohapatra as adjudicator by the Chairman, Institution of Engineers (India) Orissa State Centre, Bhubaneswar was legal or not. 9. As already held above, the facts clearly show that under the clauses of the agreement, Shri N.C. Rout was not justified in seeking a consent from the State for entering into arbitration as an adjudicator, he being already the named adjudicator in the agreement. 9. As already held above, the facts clearly show that under the clauses of the agreement, Shri N.C. Rout was not justified in seeking a consent from the State for entering into arbitration as an adjudicator, he being already the named adjudicator in the agreement. When he refused to arbitrate the dispute, there was no option left with the petitioner, but to seek for change of adjudicator on consent of the parties for which he suggested three names to the State Government, to which the State Government disagreed. Therefore, the petitioner had no other option but to approach the Chairman, Institution of Engineers (India) Orissa State Centre, Bhubaneswar for appointment of a fresh adjudicator. Even, the State Government on appointment of Shri R.C. Mohapatra did not respond to the notice issued by him on the claim lodged by the petitioner. 10. This Court, therefore, finds that the learned District Judge was not correct in holding that the award cannot be executed. The impugned order dated 6.3.2006 passed in C.M.A. No.2 of 2004 under Annexure-13, is therefore, set aside and the learned District Judge is directed to proceed with the Execution Case No. 1 of 2004 so as to complete the same at the earliest. 11. Both the writ petition and the CRP are accordingly allowed. Petitions allowed.