IMPORTANT POINT
The executing court has limited powers and cannot go behind the decree unless it lacks inherent jurisdiction. Finality and res judicata are significant in legal proceedings, and undue delays in execution are a cause of concern.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. Lamenting the wrong delay in execution of decrees the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently observed in case of Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf Vs. Dadam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1378 interalia that:-

“2. A legal journey adopted by the appellant with periodical stoppages orchestrated in the process at behest of respondent no(s). 1 and 2 brought the lis back to the place where it started, forcing it to undertake a fresh guard by the impugned order.

3. This case is a classic example of the unfortunate situation taken note of and lamented by Right Honorable Sir James Colvilbe in General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Sing, 1872 SCC OnLine PC 16,

“These proceedings certainly illustrate what was said by Mr. Doyne, and what has been often stated before, that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree…

4. The situation not only continues but has become more prevalent.”

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 18th September, 2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tehatta, Nadia passed in connection with Civil Revision Case No. 6/2010 the present petitioner has filed this instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By passing the impugned order the learned 1st Revisional Court affirmed the order passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tehatta, Nadia in Title Execution Case No. 5/2009 in which petition filed by the present petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.

3. Despite service affected upon the opposite parties they did not venture to appear and contest the present revisional application.

4. The only question for consideration in this revisional application is whether the executing Court is justified in passing the impugned order.

5. The execution case being T. Exn. No. 5/2009 was filed by the respondent no. 1 (herein) with a prayer for execution of the decree passed in T.S. 80/82 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Krishnagar on 25.05.1992 against the proforma opposite party no 2 (herein). It is the case of the petitioner that he was not impleaded as a party to that title suit although proforma opposite party no. 2 (herein) has transferred her share in respect of the suit property by executing registered deeds of sale dated 11.04.83 and 16.04.96 and gave possession to him. Accordingly, the present petitioner became the co-sharer in respect of the suit property. It is stated by the petitioner that being a transferee/purchaser of the properties to the suit he filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the same was rejected by the learned Trial Court holding that being a stranger petitioner he is not entitled to file such application before the Court. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court the petitioner preferred an application under Section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure before the 1st Revisional Court but the same was rejected by the Court by passing the order under challenge.

6. It is stated by the petitioner that as soon as he came to know about the execution of the decree he filed another suit with a prayer for partition claiming himself to be one of the co-sharers in respect of the suit property 1st before the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court at Krishnanagar and the same was registered as Title Suit No. 297 of 2009. At the time of hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed that the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court acted illegally in rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure without considering the fact that he became co-sharer by dint of purchase from the opposite party no. 2 (herein) Jahura Khatoon and as such he has every right to file an application under Section 47 of CPC challenging the executaibility of the decree.

7. It is profitable to