1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NO.1098 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.2249 OF 2002 M/s.Agarwal International .. Plaintiff Versus M/s.Emkey Exports & Anr. .. Defendants Mr.Shyamsunder Agarwal, proprietor of plaintiff present in person None for defendants. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2nd December 2008 P.C. . This matter was before me yesterday and 2 it was pointed out that a copy of the notice has been duly served on the decree holders. It was also pointed out that the notice of motion was moved for setting aside ex parte decree but as yet, neither is the decree set aside nor any orders staying execution proceedings have been passed. 2. All that is relied upon in the affidavit in reply filed to the instant notice is that the decree has been passed in a summary suit but for the reasons set out in para 6 of the affidavit, the decree is not tenable in law. It is apparent to me that the Court cannot go behind the decree in execution proceedings. Admittedly, the decree is a money decree passed in the summary suit and, therefore, these pleas cannot be raised by the judgement debtors. 3. The judgement debtors have filed reply so also their Advocate has filed vakalatnama. This 3 clearly means that they are aware of the notice under Order XXI Rule 22 being moved by the decree holders. 4. Since the decree has already been passed and considering the provisions of Order XXI Rule 22, leave to execute the same would be necessary. The notice is made absolute. No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)