JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Manish Goyal for the revisionist in these four revisions and Shri Anurag Khanna, assisted by Shri Kartikeya Saran for the opposite party in each of these revisions. 2. In all these four revisions, objections under Section 47 C.P.C. have been rejected by the Executing Court. 3. The contesting opposite party filed Execution Case No. 504/2015 for execution of a conciliation agreement entered between the parties on 12.09.2014 and Execution Case No. 66/2016 for execution of a conciliation agreement dated 12.09.2014. Another Execution Case No. 117/2016 was filed by the opposite party for execution of a judgment dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Delhi High Court on the basis of memorandum of understanding dated 13.08.2014 Original Suit No. 194/2014. In these execution cases, objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code were filed by the Directors of M/s Sanwariya Gas and by M/s Sanwariya Gas itself. 4. As noticed above, all these objections under Section 47 C.P.C. have been rejected by the executing court. All the orders are dated 23.03.2019. One order has been passed rejecting the objection under Section 47 filed in Execution Case No. 66/2017 while the other order rejects the objection under Section 47 C.P.C. filed in Execution Case No. 117/2016. 5. Civil Revision Nos. 69 and 70 of 2019 are directed against the order passed on the objections under Section 47 C.P.C. which were filed in Execution Case No. 66/2016 while Revision Nos. 68 and 71 pertain to the orders passed in Execution Case No. 117/2016. 6. Since identical issues are involved in these two sets of revisions the same have been heard and are being decided together by a common order. 7. The submission of Shri Manish Goyal assisted by Shri Nikhil Mishra on behalf of the revisionists is that the opposite party M/S 44, Noida Infratech (Two) Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for specific performance of a memorandum of understanding dated 17.10.2012. During the pendency of the suit a memorandum of understanding was entered into between the parties on 13.08.2014. On this MOU dated 13.08.2014 being filed in court the suit was disposed of in its terms vide order dated 27.08.2014. 8. It is submitted that in accordance with a clause contained in this memorandum of understanding, specially paragraph no. During the pendency of the suit a memorandum of understanding was entered into between the parties on 13.08.2014. On this MOU dated 13.08.2014 being filed in court the suit was disposed of in its terms vide order dated 27.08.2014. 8. It is submitted that in accordance with a clause contained in this memorandum of understanding, specially paragraph no. 7, this memorandum of understanding which forms part of the judgment dated 27.08.2014 was modifiable with the consent of the parties. Subsequently, another memorandum of understanding was entered into between the parties on 12.09.2014 before the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre of the Delhi High Court. This subsequent agreement dated 12.09.2014, in fact, superseded the memorandum of understanding dated 13.08.2014, which formed part of the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 27.08.2014 and was modifiable with the consent of the parties. 9. Subsequently, another memorandum of understanding was entered into between the parties on 12.09.2014, before the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre of the Delhi High Court. This subsequent agreement dated 12.09.2014, in fact, superseded the memorandum of understanding dated 13.08.2014 which forms part of the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 27.08.2014. 10. His contention, therefore, is that the judgment dated 27.08.2014, since it stood superseded by the memorandum of understanding dated 12.09.2014, the same was no longer executable. Therefore, Execution Case No. 117/2016 was not maintainable. 11. He has further contended that only the conciliation agreement dated 12.09.2014 was executable but there was no breach of the conditions agreed therein and this fact alone renders even Execution Case No. 66/2017, not maintainable. 12. It appears that both the Execution Cases were initially filed before the Delhi High Court but were transferred to Bulandshahr, vide order dated 29.08.2016. 13. The second objection of Shri Manish Goyal is that both the Execution Cases were not maintainable also because copy of the decree was never filed before the Executing Court. He has also contended that in fact no decree has been drawn up neither do the Execution Applications mention any decree. He has placed reliance upon Order 23 Rule 3 to submit that on the basis of compromise, if the same is accepted the court is required to draw up a decree and it is the decree alone which is executable. Since no decree has in fact been drawn up or filed with the Execution cases the same had to fail. 14. Since no decree has in fact been drawn up or filed with the Execution cases the same had to fail. 14. His next contention is that in fact by means of the Execution Applications the opposite party is seeking transfer of shares of Sanwariya Gas. Such relief cannot be granted by the Executing Court and this relief can only be granted by the National Company Law Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court in this regard is completely barred. Therefore, also, the execution cases were liable to be rejected and the Executing Court have committed manifest illegality in rejecting the objection under Section 47 C.P.C. 15. Lastly, it has been submitted that the execution applications have been filed arraying the Directors also of Sanwariya Gas. Therefore, execution is sought against them and their personal property. This again is not permissible. 16. Shri Anurag Khanna appearing for the decree holder opposite party no. 1 has supported the impugned order. He has submitted that execution cases had been filed before the Delhi High Court. They were transferred to Bulandshahr along with a certificate of transfer duly issued by the Delhi High Court. It is therefore, to be presumed that all documents required to accompany the Execution Case were available when the certificate of transfer were issue by the Delhi High Court. 17. He has additionally submitted that the decree, if at all was required to be filed only in Execution Case No. 117/2016 as judgment dated 27.08.2014 passed in Original Suit No. 194/2014 was the judgment of Civil Court. No decree is required to be drawn up as regards Conciliation Agreement duly entered into between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the Delhi High Court. 18. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in 2017 Volume 5 SCC page 371 specially paragraph 20 to 22 thereof. 19. He has next submitted that the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties was duly signed on behalf of Board of Directors. He has additionally submitted that none of the Board of Directors never filed anything to show that the authorized signatory of the memorandum of understanding/compromise was not entitled to act on behalf of the Directors. 20. 19. He has next submitted that the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties was duly signed on behalf of Board of Directors. He has additionally submitted that none of the Board of Directors never filed anything to show that the authorized signatory of the memorandum of understanding/compromise was not entitled to act on behalf of the Directors. 20. The next submission of Shri Anurag Khanna is that the memorandum of understanding dated 13.08.2014 and the memorandum of understanding arrived at before the Conciliation and Mediation Centre on 12.09.2014 operate in entirely different fields. 21. The contention therefore, that the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 27.08.2014 which incorporated the memorandum of understanding dated 13.08.2014 was not superseded by the memorandum of understanding dated 12.09.2014 arrived at before the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre of the Delhi High Court and the submission to the contrary is without substance. Elaborating further, he has submitted that the agreement dated 13.08.2014 incorporated in the judgment dated 28.07.2014 was with regard to repayment of the principal amount of Rs.14 crores. The other agreement/memorandum of understanding was for removal of Sanjay Kumar, the Chief Managing Director of the decree holder. 22. He has also referred to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.08.2014 to submit that it was required to be followed even after the Memorandum of Understanding on September, 2014 arrived at in the Conciliation proceedings. For this purpose, he has referred to page 89 of the paper book of Revision No. 71/2019. 23. He has lastly submitted that an objection under Section 47 C.P.C. is not maintainable is a case where an arbitration award is put to execution. 24. In rejoinder, reference has been made to forms 58 and 59 to submit that subsequently the Registrar of Companies has been directed to transfer 51 % shares of Sanwariya Gas. However, this Court does not consider it necessary to enter into the dispute because admittedly, the orders passed in this regard are subject matter of petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Nos. 2604 and 2622 of 2019. 25. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record. 26. In my considered opinion, the only dispute which requires consideration at this stage is whether an Execution Case is maintainable in the absence of the decree sought to be executed. 2604 and 2622 of 2019. 25. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record. 26. In my considered opinion, the only dispute which requires consideration at this stage is whether an Execution Case is maintainable in the absence of the decree sought to be executed. Initially, the contention of counsel for the revisionist was that no decree has been drawn up by the Delhi High Court in Original Suit No. 194/2014 and therefore, the Execution Application was not liable to be entertained. It is also the case of the revisionist that this was plea specifically raised in the objection under Section 47 C.P.C. but the same has not been adverted to while rejecting the objections. 27. Initially, Shri Anurag Khanna, had tried to submit that the copy of the decree was in fact filed along with Execution Application before the Delhi High Court. He has subsequently stated that copies of the decree of Original Suit No. 194/20114 has been filed before the Executing Court on 18.05.2019 by way of abundant caution with a view to overcome the objections being raised in these revisions. 28. In my considered opinion, it is a decree which is to be executed by the Executing Court. A judgment, per se, is not executable and it is only the decree which is drawn up after the judgment has been passed which is to be executed by the Executing Court. Prima facie, it also appears that a copy of the decree of Original Suit No. 194/2014 did not accompany the Execution Case No. 117/2016. In the absence of the decree, the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to proceed in the Execution Case and for the same reason the impugned orders rejecting the objection under Section 47 C.P.C. cannot be sustained. The rejection order cannot be sustained also because despite this plea being specifically raised, the Executing Court has failed to advert to it. 29. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders in Civil Revision Nos. 69 and 70 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Executive Court for fresh consideration and for it to examine as to whether copy of the decree in Original Suit No. 194/2014 is available on record before it. In case, the decree is on record, the Executive Court shall proceed further in the matter but not otherwise. 30. In case, the decree is on record, the Executive Court shall proceed further in the matter but not otherwise. 30. In so far as the revision nos. 68 and 71 are concerned, this pertains to execution of the conciliation agreement dated 12.09.2014. This agreement also prima facie does not appear to be one arrived at in arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act but appears to have been arrived at in consolidation proceedings held before the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre of the Delhi High Court. The executive court also therefore, also needs to determine as to whether in pursuance of the conciliation agreement a decree is required to be drawn up and if so, it should proceed in the Execution Case only if such a decree has been brought on record. 31. For the forgoing Revision Nos. 68 and 71 are also allowed and these matters also stand remanded to the Executing Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observation/directions contended in the body of this judgment. 32. Accordingly, all the four revisions are allowed, the orders impugned therein are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration, strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made hereinabove.