1. I take the foil wing facts from the judgment of the lower Appellate Court: The defendant-respondent, Musammat Bundao, obtained a decree against Jaikaran Singh, the plaintiff-appellant, and his brothers, as the heirs and legal representatives of their grandfather, Udit Singh. The decree was for recovery of the money from any property of Udit Singh which might be found in the hands of the judgment-debtors. The person and other property of the judgment-debtors were exempted. Certain immoveable property was attached by the decree-holder in execution of this decree. Jaikaran Singh objected to the attachment on the ground that the property in question was his own and had not belonged to Udit Singh. This objection was decided against him on the merits and he filed no appeal. I agree with the lower Appellate Court that Jaikaran Singh is precluded, by reason of the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, from maintaining the present suit, the object of which is to obtain a reversal of the decision arrived at in the execution department. The cases quoted in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court are good authority for this proposition and in Messrs. Ameer Ali and Woodroffe's Edition of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the note to Order XXI, Rule 63, a long string of authorities will be found quoted for the proposition that that rule refers only to cases in which the claimant or objector was not a party to the decree. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal.