ORDER : 1. The captioned civil revision petition is filed by the decree holder challenging the order of the executing court passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Section 47 of CPC. 2. The present case on hand is a helpless decree holder who is made to run pillar to post to enforce the decree which is in his favour passed in O.S.No.69/1997. The present petitioner filed a money suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.65,340/. The respondents/judgment debtors did not contest the proceedings. The trial court proceeded to pass an exparte decree. The present respondent/judgment debtors filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC questioning the order placing him exparte pending suit. The said application on enquiry was rejected. The respondents/judgment debtors did not challenge the order passed by the learned Judge on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC. 3. The learned Judge has proceeded to examine the contentions of the present petitioner/decree holder and accordingly decreed the suit directing the present respondents to pay the amount. It is borne out from the records that respondents did not challenge the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.69/1997. Since the decree passed in O.S.No.69/1997 has attained finality, the present petitioner initiated execution proceedings for recovery of decreetal amount by filing E.P.NO.49/2002. The judgment debtors have resisted the execution proceedings by filing I.A.No.3 under Section 47 of CPC. The executing court without calling upon the decree holder to produce the certificate of reconstitution has partly allowed the application holding that, in the absence of reconstitution, the petitioner was not entitled to file a suit seeking recovery of money. Accepting this defence, the executing court has allowed the application in part and dismissed the execution petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/decree holder would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that in fact, there was reconstitution of a firm and consequentially the same was registered on 04.06.1987. This court by order dated 16.10.2020 directed the present petitioner to produce the said certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the same along with synopsis dated 15.01.2021. The said certificate of registration is taken on record. 5. Now this court would deal with the controversy arising in the petition in two folds. This court by order dated 16.10.2020 directed the present petitioner to produce the said certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the same along with synopsis dated 15.01.2021. The said certificate of registration is taken on record. 5. Now this court would deal with the controversy arising in the petition in two folds. Insofar as the first part of the argument is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner/decree holder would submit to this court that the executing court erred in venturing into holding an enquiry under Section 47 of CPC and as such, the same is contrary to the settled proposition of law. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (2017)5SCC371, Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Private Limited vs P.R.Selvam Alagappan. The Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the said issue and was of the view that question under Section 47 of CPC has to be considered only on limited ground where a decree suffered from jurisdictional error/infirmity or is void and a nullity. In the present case on hand, the judgment debtors are virtually allowed to set up a defence which was available to them in the original suit. Even for the sake of arguments, if this court were to accept that the finding recorded by the court below in O.S.No.69/1997 is palpably erroneous, it is trite law that an erroneous finding cannot be disturbed in the execution proceedings and such a recourse is not available under Section 47 of CPC. This material aspect is not dealt by the executing court. The finding recorded by the executing court on I.A.No.3 runs contrary to the settled proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. In that view of the matter, I find that there is some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/decree holder. 6. The second limb of the argument canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner/decree holder is that, even otherwise the finding of the executing court that there was no reconstitution of the firm and the plaintiff has not secured certificate of registration is also erroneous. To counter this finding, pursuant to the order passed by this court, the petitioner has placed on record the certificate of registration. I have perused the same. To counter this finding, pursuant to the order passed by this court, the petitioner has placed on record the certificate of registration. I have perused the same. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/judgment debtor No.1 would vehemently argue and contend that this court cannot take judicial note of this document. There may be some force in the submission canvassed by the counsel for the respondent No.2/judgment debtor No.1. Even if this document is ignored still this court is of the view that the order passed by the executing court is palpably erroneous and the same is suffers from perversity and the reasoning runs contrary to the settled proposition of law rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. Respondent No.2/judgment debtor No.1 cannot raise the defences that were available to him had he contested the suit. The executing court was required to out rightly reject the defence set up by the respondents by dismissing the application and the same has resulted in abuse of process. 7. The executing court by dismissing the execution has virtually tried to alter the decree on its notion of fairness of justice, which is impermissible in law. If the executing court is allowed to go into the validity of the decree passed by the courts, it will lead to a situation that executing court is allowed to sit in judgment over correctness of the decree passed by the courts. The powers of executing court are very narrow. The executing court can allow objection under Section 47 of CPC to the executability of the decree if it is found that the same is void ab initio and nullity apart from the ground that decree is not capable of execution under law either because the same was passed in ignorance of such provison of law or the law was promulgated making a decree in executable after its passing. In the present case on hand, judgment debtor wants to nonsuit the decree by contending that reconstitution of partnership deed was not registered and thereby the trial court was not justified in taking note of the said deed. This defence is not available under Section 47 of CPC. 8. Section 47 embraces the matters concerning the execution of an existing decree between parties and covers the questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. This defence is not available under Section 47 of CPC. 8. Section 47 embraces the matters concerning the execution of an existing decree between parties and covers the questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Evidently the expression “questions” as used in Section 47 means such questions which an properly arise or be raised in the execution proceedings. The objection raised by the decree holder in regard to non-registration of reconstitution of partnership deed does not fall within the definition of “questions” as contemplated under Section 47 of CPC. 9. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for respondent No.2/judgment debtor No.1 in the case of AIR1970SC1475, Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi Vs Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Others is not applicable to the present case on hand. In the said judgment, the objection was in regard to jurisdiction of the court. It is trite law that, if the court lacks inherent jurisdiction, the same can be questioned at any stage including the execution proceedings. The judgment cited supra has no application to the present case on hand. 10. In that view of the matter, the order under challenge is set aside. The execution petition No.49/2002 is restored on file and the present petitioner is entitled to proceed with the execution petition. No order as to costs.