JUDGMENT : Bharat P. Deshpande, J. Rule, Rule is made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final disposal with consent. 2. Heard Ms. Maria Correia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Cleofato Almeida Coutinho, learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. The present petition is challenging the order dated 23/02/2023 passed by the Civil Court in Regular Execution Application No.1/2022 thereby directing the petitioner to disclose assets and liabilities on oath under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC for the satisfaction of the decree. 4. Ms. Correia appearing for the petitioner would submit that the decree was passed with regard to handing of possession and arrears of rent. The possession of the property is already handed over, however, execution application is filed by the Decree holder /respondent to recover arrears of rent and mesne profit. She submits that the petitioner has already paid /deposited rental amount of Rs.1,43,000/- into the account of the decree holder and presented the proof, however, the learned Executing Court failed to consider such aspect and even though there are no dues pending to be recovered from judgment debtor, directed the petitioner to file an affidavit disclosing assets for the purpose of attachment. Ms. Maria Correia would submit that the impugned order is clearly perverse and without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner and therefore interference is required. 5. Ms. Maria further submits that as far as aspect of mesne profit is concerned, an inquiry is necessary however no such order is passed. 6. Per contra, Mr. C. Coutinho would submit that the Executing Court has rightly exercised jurisdiction as the petitioner/Judgment Debtor is trying to raise the issue which has been concluded by two Courts. He submits that an attempt on the part of petitioner is only forcing the Executing Court to go behind the decree which is not permissible. He placed reliance in the case of Pradeep Mehra v. Marijivan J. Jethwa (Since Deceased thr.Lrs) and others [2020 (11) JT 39]. 7. Rival contentions fall for consideration. 8. The petitioner is admittedly a Judgment Debtor whereas the respondent is a Decree holder. The execution application is filed for the purpose of recovery of the arrears of Rs.1,43,000/- as awarded by both the Courts. 7. Rival contentions fall for consideration. 8. The petitioner is admittedly a Judgment Debtor whereas the respondent is a Decree holder. The execution application is filed for the purpose of recovery of the arrears of Rs.1,43,000/- as awarded by both the Courts. Admittedly, possession of the property is already handed over to the Decree holder, however, recovery of the amount of arrears of rent is still a question which has to be decided by the Executing Court. 9. The contention of Ms. Correia is that arrears of rent of Rs.1,43,000/- from 2019 to 2020 is already paid by the Judgment debtor. In this respect, she would submit that the reply filed by the judgment debtor /petitioner to the application for disclosure of assets on affidavit clearly shows that such amount was paid on three different occasions to the Decree holder as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the reply. Accordingly to her, such statement which is supported by the Bank records wherein the amount has been transferred in the name of decree holder on three occasions stands established. According to her, except the aspect of mesne profit, the other two issues are already resolved. Thus there was no occasion for the trial Court asking the petitioner to file an affidavit disclosing assets. 10. No doubt the Bank statement produced along with the reply shows that by three different transactions it is proved that the amount has been transferred in the account of decree holder. However, it is also a fact that the suit filed by the respondent/decree holder and the decree drawn therein shows that the petitioner/defendant/judgment debtor is directed to pay Rs.1,43,000/- towards the rent from 01/04/2019 till 28/02/2020. The Decree was passed on 27/11/2021 whereas three transactions which the petitioner placed reliance upon are dated 16/04/2019, 10/06/2019 and 05/07/2019. Thus, it is clear from the record that the payment which the judgment debtor is now claiming as the amount paid to the decree holder is much prior to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In spite of such payment, the trial Court decreed the suit thereby directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,43,000/- for the period from 01/04/2019 till 28/02/2020. 11. Mr. In spite of such payment, the trial Court decreed the suit thereby directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,43,000/- for the period from 01/04/2019 till 28/02/2020. 11. Mr. Coutinho was right in his submissions that the petitioner by filing an appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.61 of 2022 raised this aspect, however, First Appellate Court answered point No.4 for determination in negative which reads thus: "Whether the trial Court erred in directing respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,43,000/- and further pay mesne profit to the plaintiff?" 12. While answering a point No.4, the First Appellate Court has observed that the payment which the Judgment debtor is now claiming is with regard to the earlier agreement and that the plaintiff was not confronted with the document to prove that the rent of Rs.1,43,000/- is for the period from 01/04/2019 to 28/02/2020. There is specific disclosure made by the plaintiff/respondent that though the agreement was renewed for 11 months from 01/04/2019 to 28/02/2020 and the judgment debtor occupied the premises, he did not pay the amount of rental for the entire period. The learned First Appellate Court in its Judgment dated 18/04/2023 rejected the contention of the petitioner that such amount is already paid for the period mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court. Thus the decree passed by the trial Court is confirmed by the First Appellate Court thereby confirming that the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to recover the rental from 01/04/2019 till 28/02/2020. 13. In the present petition, a specific averment is made by the petitioner that since First Appeal preferred by him is dismissed, the petitioner is in process of preferring Second Appeal. Be that as it may, fact remains that the judgment of the trial Court awarding an amount of Rs.1,43,000/- towards rent from 01/04/2019 till 28/02/2020 is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The payment which the petitioner is now claiming as the rent for the said period is reflecting on record as transferred in three installments in the year 2019. Admittedly, there was an earlier contract for a period of 11 months. Thus, the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree while executing it. All other questions can be entertained. However, the petitioner is now trying to raise the same issue which he raised before the First Appellate Court, but was not successful. Admittedly, there was an earlier contract for a period of 11 months. Thus, the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree while executing it. All other questions can be entertained. However, the petitioner is now trying to raise the same issue which he raised before the First Appellate Court, but was not successful. Thus under Section 47 r/w. Order XXI CPC the question to be determined by the Court executing decree are mentioned, however in that process, the question which is already decided or deemed to have been decided by the Court at earlier stage cannot be gone into, as held in the case of Pradeep Mehra (supra). 14. The learned trial Court directed the petitioner /judgment debtor to disclose assets on affidavit and observed the provisions of Order XXI Rule 41 CPC. Such order cannot be termed as illegal or perverse so as to interfere in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 15. Rule stand discharged. Judgment continued 16. At this stage, Mr. Coutinho prays that the amount which is deposited by the petitioner in this Court be transferred to the Executing Court. The request stands allowed. Registry to act accordingly.