JUDGMENT Indira Shah, J. At the worst the decree can be said to be ambiguous, in such a case it is the duty of the executing Court to construe the decree. For the purpose of interpreting a decree, when its terms are ambiguous, the Court would certainly be entitled to look into the pleadings and the judgment. There is no denial of fact that the suit filed by the O.P. was for declaration of his title and khas possession by evicting the defendant from the suit land. The suit was decreed declaring title and possession and it was also declared that the defendant did not acquire any title in respect of suit land, for absence of any specific relief of ‘khas possession ’evicting the defendants, the decree could not be executed. 2. While disposing of the earlier revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 115, CPC, liberty was given to the O.P. To seek necessary relief from competent authority. Again this Court, while disposing of the CRP No. 65/2010 directed the Munsiff No. 2 to decide its jurisdiction to entertain such application seeking amendment of the decree in Title Suit No. 45/1987. Learned Munsiff No. 2, accordingly decided the matter after perusing the pleadings and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 3. The executing Court in terms of section 47 of the CPC has to decide all questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. For execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, the decree holder cannot be drived to file a separate suit. Thus, the executing Court has committed no error interpreting the true meaning of the decree and impugned order needs no interference. 4. This petition is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. Petition dismissed.