JUDGMENT 1. - This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the Order dated 16.3.2015 passed by the Executing Court, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been rejected. 2. The respondents filed a suit under the provisions of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 ('the Act'). 3. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 4. When the said decree was not questioned by the petitioner, the present proceedings for execution of the decree were initiated, wherein the present application was filed by the petitioner challenging the execution proceedings, inter alia, on the ground that mandatory provisions of the Act i.e. Section 11 has not been followed by the Trial Court and, therefore, the decree was void and the same cannot be executed. 5. The Executing Court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the decree has not been questioned by the petitioner and as the decree already provides for instalments and the issue cannot be agitated in the execution proceedings and, consequently, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 6. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Executing Court was not justified in dismissing the objections raised by the petitioner. It was submitted that a bare look at the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court reveals that provisions of Section 11 of the Act have not been followed and, therefore, the decree was void. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 8. The petitioner appeared in the suit filed by the respondents and after a complete trial, the decree was passed and the petitioner now submits that the Trial Court did not determine the status of the petitioner. Apparently the said aspect was not raised by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, despite that, the Trial Court in terms of Section 11 of the Act has directed repayment of loan in instalments, therefore, apparently, it cannot be said that there was a non-compliance of provisions of Section 10 or 11 of the Act. 9. Apparently the said aspect was not raised by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, despite that, the Trial Court in terms of Section 11 of the Act has directed repayment of loan in instalments, therefore, apparently, it cannot be said that there was a non-compliance of provisions of Section 10 or 11 of the Act. 9. Besides the above, once the petitioner has appeared in the suit, suffered decree and did not challenge the same by way of appropriate proceedings, the decree passed in the said suit became final, the claim that such decree was void and was not executable cannot be said to be justified.In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******