A suit challenging a decree passed in a previous suit is barred under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree are to be determined by the executing court and not by a separate suit.

ORDER :- This is an application for rejection of the plaint and for stay of all further proceedings in suit No. 691 of 1989 (Sampatraj Pagaria v. Delta International Pvt. Ltd. and another). It is the case of the petitioner that by and under a registered indenture of lease dated July 10, 1977 the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, the Council House Properties Pvt. Ltd., demised unto the predecessor in interest of the respon­dent No. 2, the Eagle Star Insurance Com­pany Ltd., the entirety of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth floor of the premises No. 4, Government Place (North) "Eagle House", Calcutta for a term of 21 years commencing on and from June 14, 1967 at and for a monthly rental of Rs. 10,770.30 p. and service charges of Rs. 7,180.20 p. on terms and conditions mentioned in the said lease. Council House Properties Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with the petitioner by an order passed by this court in company proceeding, as a result whereof all the right, title and interest of the said Council House Properties Pvt. Ltd., the transferer company, stood transferred to and vested in the petitioner, the transferee company. The respondent/defen­dant No. 2 is the successor in interest of M/s. Eagle Star Insurance Company and prior to May 1984 was known as Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. The peti­tioner instituted a suit in this court being suit No. 883 of 1987 against the said defendant No. 2 herein claiming decree for khas posses­sion of the suit premises and a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- and further mesne profits. The said suit was filed alleging inter alia subletting of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th floors of the said premises to various persons including the plaintiff in the instant suit without consent of the petitioner and/or his predecessor in inter­est. In the said suit an application was made for judgment upon admission by the peti­tioner and after hearing counsel for the parties the trial Judge was inclined to allow the said application and ultimately passed a decree on June 9, 1989. At the suggestion of the parties, the said decree for eviction passed against the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was adjusted. Before the said decree could be put into execution the plaintiff herein instituted the instant suit praying for the following reliefs :

"(a) A declaration that the plaintiff is a monthly tenant in respect of a room measur­ing about 850 sq. ft. and a bathroom on the 6th floor of the Eagle House, No. 4, Govern­ment Place North, Calcutta 700001 more particularly described in the Schedule hereto annexed and included in the said Annexure A;

(b) Declaration that the decree passed in Suit No. 883 of 1987 (Messrs. Delta Inter­national Limited v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited) is not binding upon the plaintiff and is not executable against the plaintiff;

(c) The said decree be adjudged void and set aside and/or cancelled in so far as it is directed against the plaintiff;

(d) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from in any manner disturbing or interfering with the possession, occupation and enjoyment of the said room on the 6th floor occupied by the plaintiff and the said bath-room and all amenities and facilities - hitherto enjoyed by the plaintiff including supply of water and electricity;

(e) Receiver;

(f) Injunction;

(g) Costs;

(h) Such other and further reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled."

It has been alleged that on a plain reading of the plaint in the instant suit it would be manifest that M/s. N. F. Buckley which was a proprietary concern of Norman Frank Buck­ley was a sub-tenant under the defendant No. 2 in respect of a portion of the demised premises until 1984. Thereafter the plaintiff allegedly acquired the said business of M/s. N. F. Buckley from Norman Frank Buckley, the sole proprietor thereof. Prior to 1984 the plaintiff had no right, title or interest whatsoever in respect of the suit premises. It also appears from the plaint that the plainti