Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Ananda Chandra Panda (Dead) Through Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
The Collector, Keonjhar & Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 1920 of 2011
Decided On : 22-01-2026
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 47 – Objection to execution of decree – All questions arising between parties to suit in which decree was passed or their representatives relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree must be determined by Court executing decree and not by a separate suit – Said questions must be determined during pendency of execution proceeding and not subsequently when execution proceeding is closed and decree has been executed to satisfaction of Executing court – In instant case there was no such application filed by respondents herein during pendency of execution proceedings by appellant herein – It is only thereafter when execution proceeding was concluded that application under Section 47 of CPC was filed – Respondents herein could have assailed order passed in execution petition, if it was so advised; same not having been done, application seeking setting aside of delivery of possession could not have been filed subsequent to satisfaction of decree when there was no such objection raised during pendency of execution proceedings – Impugned orders set aside. (Paras 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Appellants are aggrieved by Order dated 06.04.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1888/2007 by High Court of Orissa at Cuttack by which Writ Petition filed assailing an order dated 24.01.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Anandpur in CMA No.40/2006 arising out of Execution Proceeding No.8/2000 rejecting appellant’s preliminary objections to application filed by respondents herein under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was sustained.
Findings of Court:
Respondent-State in the instant case was thereafter estopped from filing said application under Section 47 of CPC. The respondent-State could not have approbated and reprobated on the question of handing over the possession to the appellants herein.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court emphasized that objections to the delivery of possession after the execution of a decree has been finalized are not maintainable, as such objections should have been raised during the execution proceedings. Once the decree has been executed and the process is complete, parties are estopped from challenging the delivery of possession (!) (!) (!) .
The application filed by respondents under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) after the satisfaction of the decree was found to be not maintainable because all questions related to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree must be determined during the execution process itself, not after its conclusion (!) (!) .
The respondents had previously indicated no objection to the delivery of possession, and their subsequent challenge under Section 47 was considered inconsistent with their earlier stance. The court held that they could not have contested the delivery of possession after the execution was complete and the decree was satisfied (!) (!) .
The court noted that the application under Section 47 was filed only after the execution proceedings had been concluded, which rendered the application void and not maintainable. The proper course would have been to raise objections during the execution proceedings itself (!) (!) .
The respondents were estopped from filing the application under Section 47 due to their previous conduct and statements indicating no objection to the delivery of possession. This conduct was considered to have waived their right to challenge the delivery afterward (!) .
The appellate court set aside the orders of the lower courts, including the High Court's dismissal of the Writ Petition, and held that the application under Section 47 was not sustainable once the decree had been executed and satisfaction recorded (!) (!) .
The judgment reaffirmed the principle that questions relating to the delivery of possession should be resolved during the execution proceedings, and not after the process has been completed and the decree satisfied (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. absence of respondent representation. (Para 1 , 2 , 10) |
| 2. background of the civil suit and appeals. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. respondents seek relief under section 47 cpc. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's reasoning on maintainability of applications. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER
On perusal of the Office Report dated 12.01.2026, it is noted that despite service of notice on respondents there is no representation made on their behalf. In the circumstances, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants only.
2. Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 06.04.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1888/2007 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack by which the Writ Petition filed assailing an order dated 24.01.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Anandpur in CMA No.40/2006 arising out of Execution Proceeding No.8/2000 rejecting the appellant’s preliminary objections to the application filed by the respondents herein under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) was sustained.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants had filed a civil suit bearing T.S. No.16 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Anandpur and the said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17.01.1994.
4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the appellant herein preferred T.A. No.11/1994 before the first Appellate Court (learned District Judge at Keonjhar) and by judgment and decree dated 08.10.1999, the said appeal was allowed in part. For immediate reference, paragraph 12 of the said judgment is extracted as under:
5. The said judgment related to the declaration of right, title and interest of the appellant-plaintiff over Suit Hal Plot No.53 in Khata No.19 measuring AO.08 decimals as per the plaint schedule but the other prayers relating to suit house which stands over Hal Plot 54 and its recovery of possession was dismissed. The said judgment and decree has attained finality.
6. Since the declaration of right, title and interest of the appellant-plaintiff was made about the suit Hal plot No.53, the appellant herein preferred E.P. No.8/2000 in respect of the scheduled land. For ease of reference, the details of the scheduled land are extracted as under:
| Name of the Mouza | Khata No. | Plot No. | Status | Area | Remarks |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Khaparakhai PS Ghasipura | 19 | 53 | Gharabari | AO.08 Dec. North-Plot No.727 South-Plot No.64 East-Plot No.601 Possessed by Akhya Mishra West-Plot No.728 Present StatusHouse Homestead |
7. By order dated 26.08.2006, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Anandpur allowed the execution Case No.8/2000 which was disposed of as the decree passed by First Appellate Court was satisfied. For immediate reference the said order is extracted as under:
The report of the CCC reveals that land as demarked by him in the presence of the parties and witnesses and thereafter possession was delivered to the Dhr by the bailiff. Delivery of possession finds corroboration in the report of the bailiff as well.
No objection has been filed by the Dhr as well as Jdr against the report of the Commissioner. Thus the portion has been delivered to the Dhr as per the decree passed
Objection to execution of decree – All questions arising between parties to suit in which decree was passed or their representatives relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree must be....
Point of law: If once we accept the legal position that neither a contract for sale nor a decree passed on that basis for specific performance of the contract gives any right or title to the decree-h....
A decree for specific performance of a contract implicitly includes the right to possession of the property, and objections regarding the decree's executability must be raised collectively.
Section 74 of the CPC is not applicable after possession of immovable property has been delivered to the decree-holder.
Legal representatives are bound by their predecessor's positions in litigation and cannot seek to alter the status established in prior proceedings.
Court neither loses its jurisdiction after grant of decree for specific performance nor it becomes functus officio – If an ancillary or incidental relief is not granted, there would be no value to de....
The Executing Court's authority under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to issues of jurisdiction and the validity of the decree, and objections already adjudicated by higher courts c....
The court established that relief of possession in specific performance cases can be claimed at any stage, including execution, and is not limited to the original decree.
The executing court must determine questions arising between parties to the decree without modifying it, and procedural irregularities should not defeat substantive rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
