ORDER : Heard Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the Revision-Petitioner would submit that the revision-petition is filed against an Order, dated 05.02.2016 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada challenging in E.A.No.113 of 2015 in O.S.No.317 of 2009 whereunder the learned Trial Judge, upon considering the evidence on record, held that the contention of the revision-petitioner that his signature on the Chit Agreement was forged, is a plea to be considered in the suit and not under Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) and the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that no Revision is maintainable against an order delivered under Section 47 of CPC as it is an appealable order. He would further submit that an application under Section 47 of CPC is not maintainable on the ground that the signature of the defendant was forged on the Chit Agreement and question that can be challenged in execution proceedings is only on the ground that the Court entirely lacking inherent jurisdiction. 4. In the light of the above context of the revision petitioner and the respondents, the point that arises for consideration is: - “Whether the Execution Court committed any irregularity in the Order, dated 05.02.2016 passed in E.A.No.113 of 2015 in E.P.No.65 of 2014 in O.S.No.317 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada?” 5. POINT: It is an admitted fact that the revision-petitioner filed an application under Section 47 of CPC before the Execution Court on the ground that his signature on the Chit Agreement was forged and decree was obtained by fraud. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hira Lal Patni Vs. POINT: It is an admitted fact that the revision-petitioner filed an application under Section 47 of CPC before the Execution Court on the ground that his signature on the Chit Agreement was forged and decree was obtained by fraud. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hira Lal Patni Vs. Sri Kali Nath reported in 1962 0 AIR (SC) 199, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “The validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceedings only on the ground that the court which passed the decree was lacking in inherent jurisdiction in the sense that it could not have seizin of the case because subject matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction or that the defendant was dead at the time the suit had been instituted or decree passed, or some such other ground which could have the effect of rendering the court entirely lacking in jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of the suit in over the parties to it. But in the instant case there was no such inherent lack of jurisdiction.” 6. The contention of the revision-petitioner that the signature on this Chit agreement was forged and thereby, decree was obtained by fraud, is not within the purview of the Execution Court. It is not the contention of the revision-petitioner that the Court which passed the decree was lacking in inherent jurisdiction in the sense that it could not have seizing of the case, because the subject matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction or that the defendant was dead at the time the suit had been instituted or decree passed, or some such other ground which could have effect of rendering the Court entirely lacking in jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of the suit in over the parties to it. Therefore, the case on hand, admittedly, there was no such inherent lack of jurisdiction. In that view of the matter the revision is devoid on merits. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.