The main legal point established in the judgment is that the executing court's power under Section 47 CPC is limited to scrutinizing objections to the executability of the decree on specific grounds, such as jurisdictional infirmity or voidness.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This petition is to lacinate the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in C.M.A. No.68 of 2016 arising out of Execution Case No.02 of 1999, whereby and whereunder the learned executing court dismissed the application of the judgment-debtor under Section 47 CPC.

2. Since the dispute lies in a very narrow compass, suffice it to say that the opposite party no.1 along with predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party nos.2 to 5 instituted O.S. No. 15/111/1976/76 in the court of the learned Sub-Judge, Puri for recovery of possession of the suit property impleading the father of the petitioner and another as defendants. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs filed T.A. No.43/1978, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Puri and renumbered as T.A. No.6/43 of 1982/78. The appeal was allowed. The defendant no.2 filed Second Appeal No.180 of 1983 before this Court, which was eventually dismissed on 16.07.1993. While matter stood thus, the decree-holders levied Execution Case No.02 of 1999. In the said case, the petitioner filed an application under Section 47 CPC. It is stated that after disposal of the Second Appeal, the decree-holders executed an agreement for sale in favour of the judgment-debtor for a consideration of Rs.13,75,000/-. They have received an amount of Rs.10,75,000/-. It was, inter alia, agreed by the parties that the decree-holders would obtain a declaration from the Additional Assistant Commissioner for Endowment to sell the property. Thereafter the decree-holders filed O.A. No.25 of 2011 before the Additional Assistant Commissioner for Endowment for according permission. The same is sub judice. The judgment-debtor instituted C.S. No. 625 of 2016 for specific performance of contract impleading the decree-holders as defendants. The decree-holders filed an objection stating therein that the application under Section 47 CPC is not maintainable. The learned executing court can not go behind the decree. By order dated 02.11.2016, the learned executing court dismissed the application.

3. Mr. V. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the execution case, the decree-holders intended to sell the property to the judgment-debtor for a consideration of Rs.13,75,000/-. They have received an amount of Rs.10,75,000/-. They executed an agreement for sale. Thereafter the decree-holders filed O.A. No.25 of 2011 before the Additional Assistant Commissioner for Endowment for according permission to sell the land. The judgment-debtor/petitioner as plaintiff instituted C.S. No.625 of 2016 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri for specific performance of contract. The same is sub judice. In view of the same, the learned trial court is not justified in rejecting the application under Section 47 CPC.

4. Per contra, Mr. L.N. Rayatsingh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 5 contended that the learned executing court can not go behind the decree. The learned executing court has rightly rejected the application.

5. The scope of Section 47 CPC is well-known. In M/s Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan, AIR 2017 SC 1577, the apex Court held thus:-

“19. It is no longer res integra that an Executing Court can neither travel behind the decree nor sit in appeal over the same or pass any order jeopardizing the rights of the parties thereunder. It is only in the limited cases where the decree is by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction or is a nullity that the same is rendered non est and is thus inexecutable. An erroneous decree cannot be equaled with one which is a nullity. There are no intervening developments as well as to render the decree inexecutable.

20. As it is, Section 47 of the Code mandates determination by an executing court, questions arising between the parties or their representatives relating to the exec