The executing court cannot entertain objections outside the decree's scope, and jurisdictional challenges must be raised initially, not post-confirmation of the eviction decree.

ORDER:

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. This petition is filed by the original defendant who has suffered a decree for eviction passed by the first appellate court, which is confirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. After the confirmation of the decree, the petitioner filed an application under Section 47 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908(‘CPC’), raising objections to the execution of the decree. By the impugned order, the trial court rejected the said application. The revision application filed before the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court was dismissed, and the executing court’s order was confirmed. The petitioner has therefore filed this petition to challenge the orders rejecting the application under Section 47 of the CPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rent court, i.e. the small causes court, had no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction proceedings as the termination notice was issued under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and thus, the rent court had no jurisdiction to decide the eviction proceedings. Section 47 of the CPC is an independent provision that enables a party to raise objections that go to the root of the matter, and, more particularly, to question of the court's jurisdiction. He therefore submits that all the questions which go to the root of the matter relating to the execution of the decree must be determined by the executing court. Hence, all the objections raised by the petitioner had to be considered by the executing court. The verification of the plaint was defective and thus, even on that ground, the rent court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree of eviction, as the plaint itself was defective. The Director of the petitioner’s company was not added as a party to the suit. Hence, even on that ground, the decree would not be executable. He therefore submits that the impugned orders would warrant interference by this court as the questions regarding jurisdiction and the defective plaint, which would vitiate the entire proceedings, need to be considered in view of the scope of inquiry under Section 47 of the CPC.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent (the decree holder) supports the impugned orders. He submits that all the grounds argued in the application under Section 47 were the grounds raised in the written statement. All these objections, therefore, cannot be considered afresh in execution proceedings. He submits that the petitioner against whom the decree of eviction is confirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court has filed objections under Section 47 only with an intention to delay and defeat the execution of the eviction decree. He relies upon the findings recorded in the eviction proceedings by the first appellate court and this court in the revision application, to point out that the objections raised in the application under Section 47 . He therefore submits that the defendant who has suffered the decree cannot be entertained on such grounds as if the grounds were raised in the trial court in the suit filed for eviction. He therefore submits that the impugned order would not require any interference by this court.

4. I have perused the papers of the petition. All the grounds raised by the petitioner in the application under Section 47 are the grounds that were also raised in the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that all the grounds raised in the written statement were also argued before this court in the civil revision application and the review filed seeking review of the order rejecting the revision application against the eviction decree.

5. Initially, the trial court had di