The executing court's authority under Section 47 CPC does not permit re-examining claims already adjudicated, affirming the finality of past decisions in execution matters.

JUDGMENT :

Valmiki Menezes, J.

1.Registry to waive office objections and register the matter.

2. The Petitioner invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to impugn order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji Goa, whereby, the Court rejected an Application under Section 47 read with Section 151 and with Order XXI Rule 58, 97, 98, 100, 101 and 103 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908, filed by the Petitioner in the Regular Execution Proceeding No.21/2018 before the Civil Judge Junior Division at Panaji; by this application (Exhibit D-19 before the Executing Court), the Petitioner raised objections to the Execution Application filed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 2(a), 2(b) and 3 (original Decree Holders in SCS no.82/1990/A(old) RCS No.440/2000/C(new)) that she was the legally wedded wife of Jitendra and under the Regime of Communion of Assets under Article 1108 of the PORTUGUESE CIVIL CODE , she was entitled to have objections adjudicated.

3. It is the Petitioner’s case that an earlier application dated 30.08.2019 (Exhibit D-9 of the record of the Execution Proceeding) filed by the Petitioner, styled as “An application under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC”, the Petitioner claiming to be wife of original Judgment Debtor No. 2, Jitendra Raghuraj Deshprabhu, as his moiety under the Regime of Communion of Assets, and being entitled to 50% right in the suit property under execution, ought to be impleaded and be heard in the Execution Proceeding. It was the Petitioner’s case that this application for impleadment (Exhibit D-9) was dismissed by an order dated 11.04.2022 of the Executing Court, and was upheld by a Judgment dated 10.07.2024 of this Court whilst dismissing Writ Petition No. 476 of 2024 at the behest of the Petitioner; it is further Petitioner’s case that whilst the aforesaid application was pending before this Court, second application at Exhibit D-19 came to be filed on 06.10.2023, on which the impugned order was passed, which was referred to in this Court’s order dated 10.07.2024, whilst rejecting the petition. The Petitioner then contends that she challenged this Court’s order dated 10.07.2024 before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 19083/2024, which came to be dismissed without notice to the Respondents on 27.08.2024, with the following observations made in para 3 of its order:

“3. We are of the view that the remedy pursued by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code should have been taken to its logical conclusion on merits instead of dismissing the application on the ground that an intervention application was also pending.”

4. The main ground raised in the petition was that, in tune with the observations made in para 3 of the order dated 27.08.2024 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Executing Court ought to have decided the application at Exhibit D-19 dated 06.10.2023; a further ground is raised in the petition that the order dated 27.08.2024, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in effect set aside the impugned order dated 24.04.2024, and observed that the objections under Section 47 (Exhibit D-19 dated 06.10.2023) ought to be taken to its logical conclusion on merits.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Ms. Arundhati Katju, appearing for the Petitioner has advanced the following submissions :

(a) It was submitted that after order dated 11.04.2022 was passed by the Executing Court dismissing Exhibit D-9, an application for intervention filed by the Petitioner and whilst Writ