JUDGMENT : 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC has been filed being aggrieved vide order dated 01/10/2021 passed by First Civil Judge Senior Division Vidisha (M.P.) in Execution case No. Ex-A 26/17 (Sameermal Jalori VS Devendra Kumar Sharma & another) whereby application filed by the applicant/judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 13 Read With Section 47 and 151 of the CPC has been rejected. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that respondent No.1/ decree holder had filed civil suit against the applicant/judgment debtor for recovery of possession of the land which was registered as civil Suit No. 21-A/1992. It was alleged in the plaint that plaintiff/respondent No.1 vide sale deed dated 20/05/1977 had purchased 135X40 sq ft land bearing land survey No. 2290 from its earlier owner namely Gappulal. It was alleged that applicant had encroached upon some part of the land, thus, prayer for recovery of possession and removal of encroachment was made. The suit was contested by the applicant by filing written statement denying the plaint averments and objections were raised with regard to boundaries of the suit land. The learned Civil Judge Class I Vidisha (M.P.) vide its judgment and decree dated 10/07/1993 decreed the suit and directed to hand over the possession and also to remove the construction. Assailing the judgment and decree dated 10/07/1993, applicant had filed first appeal. The First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29/08/2000 remanded back the matter to the Trial Court for considering the case a fresh on the ground of proper valuation of court fee and also decide the case according to the demarcation since identity of the land was suspicious. Thereafter, in compliance of the order passed by the First Appellate Court, learned Trial Court recorded additional evidence and vide judgment and decree dated 23/07/2012 again decreed the suit. Being aggrieved first appeal was filed by the applicant which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17/10/2015. Being aggrieved by the Appellate Court judgment dated 17/10/2015, applicant had filed second appeal before this Court. This Court vide judgment and decree dated 10/08/2017 affirmed the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an application for execution before the learned Executing Court. Being aggrieved by the Appellate Court judgment dated 17/10/2015, applicant had filed second appeal before this Court. This Court vide judgment and decree dated 10/08/2017 affirmed the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an application for execution before the learned Executing Court. Applicant filed an application under Order 21 Rule 13 and Section 47 Read With Section 151 of the CPC alleging therein that the decree passed is an unexecutable decree as the identity of the land is in dispute since the boundaries of the suit land mentioned in the sale deed and in the map annexed alongwith plaint are different. The learned Trial Court rejected the application. 4. Being aggrieved, present revision has been filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned Executing Court rejected the application filed by the applicant on the ground that objection raised have already been decided suo motu which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court and has not been modified. Application has been filed for the purpose of delay in the execution proceedings. 7. The Apex Court in the case of (Brakewel Automotive Components (India)(P) Ltd VS P.R. Selvam Alagappan (2017) 5 SCC 371 has held that “20. It is no longer res integra that an executing court can neither travel behind the decree nor sit in appeal over the same or pass any order jeopardising the rights of the parties thereunder. It is only in the limited cases where the decree is by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction or is nullity that the same is rendered non est and is thus unexecutable. An erroneous decree can not be equalled with one which is a nullity. There are no intervening development as well to render the decree unexecutable. 21. As it is, Section 47 of the Code mandates determination by an executing court, question arising between the parties or their representative relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and does not contemplate any adjudication beyond the same. A decree of Court of law being sacrosanct in nature, the execution thereof ought not to be thwarted on mere asking and on untenable and purported grounds having no bearing on the validity or the executability thereof”. 8. A decree of Court of law being sacrosanct in nature, the execution thereof ought not to be thwarted on mere asking and on untenable and purported grounds having no bearing on the validity or the executability thereof”. 8. Andhra Pradesh High Court in the of case of Pothuri Thulasidas Vs Potru Nageswara Rao, AIR 2005 Andhra Pradesh 171 has held as under :- “13. Coming to the second aspect, it has already been pointed out that the respondent suffered a decree and his contentions were negatived throughout the hierarchy of the Courts in the country. Once the decree has become final, it is not open to him to plead new facts. Even if it is true that the ground pleaded by him in the E.A. constitutes a formidable defence, it is not open to him to plead in the Execution proceedings. If for any reason, the application under Order XXI is to be treated as independent proceedings, the plea is barred by constructive res judicata. It is settled principle of law that the executing Court cannot go beyond the scope of the decree. Further, the respondent does not propose to plead a fact, which has surfaced or taken place after the decree became final. The incident pleaded by him relates to a time when the suit was pending. Not a whisper was made in his written statement nor was it canvassed in the appeal, second appeal or S.L.P. He cannot be permitted to open a fresh round of litigation. The executing Court had taken the correct view that it is impermissible for the judgment-debtor to plead any fact contrary to the decree. However, the lower Appellate Court did not feel itself restricted by the findings recorded by the Trial Court, which became final with the dismissal of S.L.P. It proceeded as though it is undertaking adjudication afresh.” 9. In view of the aforesaid, it can not be said that learned Executing Court had fallen in error in rejecting the application. With regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court properly construed the scope and ambit of scrutiny under Section 47 of the CPC and has rightly come to the conclusion. In view of the aforesaid, it can not be said that learned Executing Court had fallen in error in rejecting the application. With regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court properly construed the scope and ambit of scrutiny under Section 47 of the CPC and has rightly come to the conclusion. The objection to the execution proceedings as well as to the application under Section 47 of the CPC filed by the applicant do not either disclose any substantial defence to the decree or testify the same to be suffering from any jurisdictional infirmity or invalidity. This Court does not find any error in the conclusion of the learned Executing Court so as to entertain this revision preferred under Section 115 of the CPC. 10. Accordingly, instant revision stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. 11. No order as to cost.