An execution petition cannot contest the merits of a decree when jurisdiction was previously established, reaffirming that challenges must focus on inherent jurisdictional defects.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioners in both these revisions are the judgment debtors. In CRP. No.1530 of 2025, the revision petitioners challenge the order made in E.A. No.1 of 2025 which was filed under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC').

2. In CRP. No.1931 of 2025, challenge is to the order dated 15.04.2025 in E.P. No.194 of 2024, in and by which, the Executing Court has ordered sale of the immovable property belonging to the judgment debtors/revision petitioners.

3. I have heard Mr.S.Senthilnathan, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP. No.1530 of 2025. Mr.R.Shivakumar, learned counsel for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates in CRP. No.1931 of 2025 and Mr.R.Bharathkumar, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder in both the revisions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP. No.1530 of 2025, Mr.S.Senthilnathan, would submit that the respondent/decree holder is guilty of fraud and fabrication of documents and the Trial Court had rightly declined to grant the relief of specific performance. However, it is the contention of Mr.Senthilnathan, learned counsel that having declined the equitable relief of specific performance, the Trial Court erroneously proceeded to award refund of the amounts advanced together with interest. The bone of contention of the argument of Mr.Senthilnathan, learned counsel is that when the agreement is marked as Ex.A3 before the Trial Court, was found to be created and fabricated, the Trial Court ought not to have relied on the terms of the very same agreement to direct refund of amounts advanced by the revision petitioner together with interest.

5. Mr.R.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP. No.1931 of 2025, apart from adopting the submissions of Mr.Senthilnathan, learned counsel would submit that in view of the findings rendered by the Trial Court, there was no cause of action for the Court to order refund of the advance and therefore, the very direction/decree is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel would further state that there is absolutely no reason as to why the Trial Court was awarding interest and falling back on the very agreement that has not been believed to award interest, is clearly unsustainable. The learned counsel would also state that the Executing Court has not followed the mandate of Order 21 Rule 64 and 66 before ordering sale of the properties of the petitioners. In support of his contentions, the learned cousnel for the petitioner have relied on the following decisions:-

(i) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. (1994) 1 SCC 1

(ii) A.V. Pappayya Sastry and Others Vs. Government of A.P and others , (2007) 4 SCC 221

(iii) Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , (2025) SCC Online SC 1501

6. Per contra, Mr.Bharathkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners are now contradicting their own stand before the Executing Court by inventing a new argument which is impermissible. He would further state that the huge amounts advanced by the respondent have been utilized by the petitioners to save their property from public auction and it is not open to the petitioners to now contend that the decree is in-executable and that the award of interest is erroneous and unsustainable without challenging the decree in a manner known to law. Mr.Bharathkumar, learned counsel would further state that though it was represented across the bar by Mr.Shivakumar, learned counsel that an appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the respondent has no notice of any such appeal having been filed