Executing Court jurisdiction under Section 47 CPC governs discharge and satisfaction of a decree; revisional interference was unsustainable.

Questions whether a decree has been discharged or satisfied fall within the exclusive domain of the Executing Court under Section 47 CPC, which must decide issues relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction in the pending execution proceedings. A revisional court cannot direct appointment of a Chartered Accountant to determine satisfaction of the decretal debt, because that would intrude into a matter reserved for the Executing Court. The High Court's direction was therefore held to be without jurisdiction and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in a civil revision arising out of execution proceedings, could direct appointment of a Chartered Accountant to determine satisfaction or discharge of the decretal debt, or whether such questions had to be decided by the Executing Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The issue whether a decree has been discharged or satisfied is one that falls within the domain of the Executing Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Executing Court must execute the decree as it stands and determine questions relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction in the pending execution proceedings. By directing appointment of a Chartered Accountant at the stage of revision, the High Court entered a matter reserved for the Executing Court and acted beyond its jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court's direction appointing a Chartered Accountant was without jurisdiction and was set aside. The appeal was allowed.

---