Principles of constructive res judicata apply to execution proceedings, preventing a judgment debtor from repeatedly raising objections that were either decided earlier or could have been raised at a previous stage of the same proceeding, thereby curbing the abuse of court process to delay decree enforcement.

ORDER :

N. MALA, J.

(1) The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.01.2026 in EA.No.3/2025 in EP.No.688/2020, on the file of the learned XXVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissing the petitioner's petition filed under Order 21 Rule 23 of CPC, seeking the dismissal of the Execution Petition filed by the respondent.

(2) The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the Civil Revision Petition.

(3) By consent of both the learned counsels, the main civil revision petition is taken up for final disposal.

Facts in brief:-

(4) The respondent filed a money suit in CS.No.874/2001 before this Court for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,53,964/- @ 36% interest. Since the petitioner failed to contest the suit, an ex-parte decree was passed on 23.06.2009, for a sum of Rs.29,79,848.86p. The petitioner thereafter filed an application to set aside the exparte decree in the suit. Meanwhile, due to the change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, the suit was transferrred to IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, and renumbered as OS.No.83/2017. In the said OS, the petitioner filed two applications, IA.No.7606/2017, for condoning the delay in seeking to set aside the exparte decree and IA.No.7605/2017, for setting aside the exparte decree. IA.No.7606/2017 was dismissed and the petitioner challenged the dismissal in CRP.[NPD].No.680/2021 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 14.07.2022, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. Pending CRP before this Court, the respondents filed the execution petition in EP.No.688/2020 on 20.01.2020, for execution of the decree dated 23.06.2009. In the EP, the petitioner filed his counter on 26.03.2020. Later, the petitioner filed EA.No.2/2023, under Order 47 of CPC, on 30.11.2022, to dismiss the EP, however, the Executing Court, on 21.02.2023, dismissed EA.No.2/2023 and so, the petitioner filed CRP.no.1455/2023, challenging the dismissal of EA.No.2/2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed EA.No.3/2023, under Order 21 Rule 23 of CPC, objecting to the execution of the decree inter alia, on the ground that EP was filed in violation of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 11[A] of CPC. The Executing Court found no merits in the EA and hence, dismissed it by the impugned order dated 30.01.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

(5) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executing Court failed to note that there was procedural non-compliance of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 11[A] of CPC, inasmuch as the respondent failed to file proper affidavit of assets/means. The learned counsel submitted that the Executing Court failed to appreciate that the execution proceedings affecting personal liberty, including arrest, must strictly comply with the statutory safeguards. The learned counsel further submitted that issue of limitation was jurisdictional in nature and therefore, it could be raised in execution proceedings also. The learned counsel submitted that the Executing Court failed to consider the objection that the exparte decree passed in the suit was not in accordance with the provision of Order 20 Rule 4 and 5 of CPC. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned order deserved to be set aside as the Court without even considering the above genuine objections, dismissed the petition on an erroneous view that it was filed only to drag on the proceedings.

(6) The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Executing Court on thorough examination of the materials on record and for cogent reasons, dismissed the petitioner's application and hence, the impugned order called for no interference.

(7) Heard both sides counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

(8) The facts are undisputed and therefore, for the sake of brevity they are not traversed in detail. Suffice it to state that the earlier endeavour of the petitioner to set aside the exparte decree, failed up to this Court and, conse