' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.--- During the execution proceedings, after pastry; of the decree for recovery of an amount of Rs,80,48,554, the appellant/judgment-debtor has filed an objection petition on the ground that the decree-holder/respondent has obtained the aforesaid decree to which it was not legally entitled. A prayer was made for reduction of the decretal amount and also a further request for the payment of the outstanding amounts through easy instalments has been made. The learned Executing Court directed the appellant/judgment debtor to furnish security for the payment of the decretal amount as required under Order XXI, rule 23-A, C.P.C. But the appellant failed to comply with the said order and resultantly his objection petition was dismissed through the impugned order. It is against this order that the appellant has now filed the instant appeal.
2. According to the appellant he has not been given proper chance of defence either in the suit or during execution proceedings or proceedings in objection petition and that the decree-holder has not been able to prove its claim against the appellant.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that in view of the non- compliance of the directions of the Executing Court in accordance with Order XXI, rule 23-A, the objection petition has rightly been dismissed.
4. The perusal of the objection petition indicates that it has been moved under section 47, C.P.C.
And which empowers the executing Court to adjudicate upon the matter relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and it cannot go behind it while according to the prayer made by the appellant through the abovementioned application is otherwise i,e, in a way the decretal amount has been challenged through the objection petition which under the law is not maintainable. Reliance in this respect can be placed on Muhammad Ali and others v. Ghulam Sarwar and others 1989 SCM R 640, wherein it has been observed that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and has to execute it as it is, unless same is patently a nullity. The above reason apart from the one about non-compliance of the order of the Court for furnishing security in accordance with Order XXI, rule 23-A given by the Tribunal is quite correct and no exception can be taken to it.
' Resultantly, this appeal has got no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs.