JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- The operative portion of this order had been pronounced in open Court on the conclusion of hearing. 2. The reasons therefore, are being given below - 3. Heard Shri Amil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the caveator. 4. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.10.2016, whereby an objection, under Section 47 CPC filed by the petitioner in a execution case, has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge / Fast Track Court No.2, Amroha. 5. Upon a judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court in a suit for arrears of rent, eviction and damages, which has been affirmed up to the Apex court, was put to execution, the objection under Section 47 CPC had been filed by the petitioner. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner before the executing Court, as also before this Court is that an earlier execution case filed by the decree holder had been dismissed in default. A second execution case was not maintainable and that the first case should have been restored in view of the provisions contained in order 21 Rule 106 CPC. 7. The second contention is that the predecessor-in-interest of the decree had accepted Rs.1,10,000/- from the petitioner objector and had allowed him to continue in possession. In view of the doctrine of part performance in-corporated by Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the petitioner could not be evicted from the accommodation in question. 8. The third contention raised is that in view of Section 23 of the Small Causes Court Act and since bar of Section 23 was raised before the revisional Court in the revision arising out of the suit, but this issue was not been considered or decided, the decree could not be executed against the petitioner. 9. Counsel for the caveator has refuted the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. 11. In so far as the contention that an earlier execution case had been dismissed in default of the decree holder, this Court finds that there is no material available on record of this petition in this regard. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. 11. In so far as the contention that an earlier execution case had been dismissed in default of the decree holder, this Court finds that there is no material available on record of this petition in this regard. Besides, the executing Court has considered this aspect and has held that in view of order 9 Rule 4 CPC, a second execution case is not barred. 12. The grounds that the execution case was barred by Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and that the decree in favour of the decree holder was barred by Section 23 of the Small Causes Court Act have been duly considered by the executing Court and it has rightly been observed that these grounds had been considered in the proceedings, where-from the execution case arises. 13. In so far as the provisions of Section 53-A are concerned, the executing Court has referred to the discussion in this regard in the judgment of the trial Court itself and this plea of part performance was found to have been negatived in the suit itself, because the petitioner had claimed on the basis of the photo copy of an alleged receipt, execution whereof, had been denied by the plaintiff in the suit. For this reason, the alleged document (photocopy), relied upon by the petitioner, was discarded in the suit. 14. As regards, the bar created by Section 23 of the Small Causes Court Act, the executing Court has observed that even this aspect was considered in the revision filed against the judgment and decree in the suit. 15. It has been observed that several applications raising this plea was filed by the plaintiff. The matter was duly considered by the revisional Court and decided against the petitioner. The issue was being raised in execution because not all applications raising the same plea had been specifically disposed of. However, since the issued had been duly considered merely because some application raising the same issue had not been specifically disposed of, it cannot be held that the issue was not considered and decided. 16. The issue was being raised in execution because not all applications raising the same plea had been specifically disposed of. However, since the issued had been duly considered merely because some application raising the same issue had not been specifically disposed of, it cannot be held that the issue was not considered and decided. 16. Besides, it would be relevant to note that the executing Court has rightly observed that the issues as regards the bar of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and Section -23 of the Small Causes Court Act are issues, which cannot be considered by the executing court which has no power or jurisdiction to go behind the decree. It has accordingly, turned down these two objections. 17. Upon a consideration of the submissions made and also upon a careful perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any illegality therein. 18. All the issues raised by the petitioner in his objection, under Section 47 CPC have been duly considered and rejected for cogent reasons. 19. The order impugned therefore, calls for no interference. 20. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.