Petitioner who was the opposite party filed appeal against the order dated 11.01.07 of the District Forum passed in complaint case no. 477 of 2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.09.08 by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal observing that both the petitioner / opposite party and the respondent no. 3 Vinod Kumar Thareja are jointly liable to pay to respondent nos. 1 & 2 / complainants Rs.11,80,000/- with interest @9% from the date of deposit till realisation. Dissatisfied with State Commission’s order, the petitioner filed revision petition, which was dismissed by this Commission. Order dated 3.10.09, which has been passed in execution proceeding by the State Commission is being challenged in this revision petition by the petitioner on the ground of its being liable to pay 50% of the awarded amount and balance being payable by Vinod Kumar Thareja, respondent no. 3. It is settled law that executing court cannot go behind the decree and if there are more than one judgement debtors the decree holder can execute decree against any of the judgement debtors. Award can thus be executed against the petitioner. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order under challenge warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dismissed.