( 1 ) HEAD both the Counsel

( 2 ) THIS C. R. P. arises on the execution side. The petitioner is. the decree holderin O. S. NO. 227/1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Nalgonda. It is submitted that the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,493/- against the defendant basing on promissory note. The suit was decreed ex parte on 29-6-1994. The respondent filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree in I. A. No. 582/95, but the same was dismissed. Later, the respondent preferred la. No. 533/1995 in the suit under Section 47 C. P. C. on the ground that the decree should be set aside as the claim of the petitioner is baited by limitation.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the sole groundset up before the executing Court was that the suit claim was barred by limitation.

( 4 ) THE lower Court after considering the arguments adduced by both thesides held that the decree in O. S. No. 227/93 is illegal, void ab initio and cannot be executed on the ground that the claim of the petitioner in the suit was barred by limitation and allowed the I. A. and dismissed the E. P. No. 72/95.

( 5 ) THE only point for consideration is whether the executing Court can gobehind the decree.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment in Joginageswaramma vs. Jogi Siva Rao wherein it was held as under:"executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The proper course is to file a separate suit for cancellation of the maintenance decree. "

( 7 ) HE also relies on a judgment of Full Bench of Kerala High Court ink. P. Antony vs, Thandiyode Plantations (Pvt.) Ltd. wherein their Lordshipshave held as under: "c. P. C. (5 of 1908), See. 47 Executionchallenge as to judgment on ground of lack of jurisdiction Not tenable. "it will not be open to a party to challenge a judgment when it is sought to be enforced on the ground that the judgment is based on wrong Condusions or on erroneous findings or on wrong application of law. As the remedy of the aggrieved party in such cases is to challenge the same in appeal or revision as the case may be and not to challenge it, when it is sought to be enforced, the respondents challenge in this case against the judgment cannot be sustained. "

( 8 ) RELYING on the above judgment, the learned Counsel for the petitionersubmits that the executing Court has committed an error in going into the merits of the suit, which has no jurisdiction.

( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on a Three-Judge-Benchjudgment of the Apex Court in Bhavan Vaja vs. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang where in their Lordships in para 19 of the Judgment have held as under:"it is true that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree under execution. But that does not mean that it has no duty to find out the true effect of that decree. For construing a decree it can and in appropriate cases it ought to take into consideration the pleadings as well as the proceedings leading into the decree. In order to find out the meaning of the words employed in a decree, the Court often has to ascertain the circumstances under which these words came to be used. That is the plain duty of the executing Court and if that Court fails to discharge that duty it has plainly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it Evidently the execution Court in this case thought that its jurisdktion began and ended with merely looking at the decree as it was finally drafted. Despite the fact that the pleadings as well as the earlier judgments rendered by the Board as well as by the appellate Court had been placed before it, the execution Court does not appear to have considered those documents. If one reads the order of that Court, it is clear that it failed to construe the decree though it purported to have construed the decree. In its order there is no reference to the documents to which we have made reference earlier. It appears to have been unduly influenced by the words of the decree unde