Parties are precluded from re-agitating issues in execution that were already determined, reinforcing the principle of finality in judgments.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

This revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioners prying for setting aside the dismissal order of CMA No.01 of 2006 under Section 47 of the CPC, 1908 passed on dated 24.02.2010 by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Padampur.

2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the suit vide T.S. No.9 of 1991 was filed by the plaintiffs thereof (Opp. Party Nos.1 to 10 in this revision) against the petitioners in this revision along with others praying for partition of the suit properties.

3. The Trial Court, decreed that suit vide T.S. No.9 of 1991 preliminarily for partition on contest as per its Judgment and Decree dated 06.01.1994 indicating the shares of the parties in the suit properties specifically.
4. That preliminary decree was made final. After final decree, the plaintiffs filed Execution Application No.18 of 2003 to execute the final decree passed in that suit vide T.S. No.9 of 1991 in their favour.
5. In that Execution Application No.18/2003, the defendant No.1 & 2 of the suit vide T.S. No.9/1991 filed CMA No.1 of 2006 under Section 47 of the CPC, 1908 making a prayer to drop that Execution Application No.18 of 2003 on the ground that, the decree passed in T.S. No.9 of 1991 is without jurisdiction being barred under Section 39 of the O.E.A. Act, 1951. According to them (defendant Nos.1 & 2) as the decree passed in T.S. No.9 of 1991 is without having jurisdiction, the said decree in T.S. No.9 of 1991 is a nullity. For which, that decree passed in T.S. No.9 of 1991 is not executable under law. Therefore, the Execution Proceeding arising out of the decree of the suit is liable to be dropped.
To which, the Opp. Party Nos.1 to 10 (plaintiffs in the suit vide T.S. No.9 of 1991) objected in their objection stating that, the petitioners in CMA No.1 of 2006 under Section 47 of the CPC being the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had filed their joint written statement in the suit vide T.S. No.9 of 1991, and during trial of the suit, the defendant No.1 had not contested, but whereas the defendant No.2 (petitioner No.2 in CMA No.1/2006) had contested taking their stands that, the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.9 of 1991 is barred under Section 39 of the O.E.A. Act.
After taking the above ground raised by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement about the non-maintainability of the suit as per Section 39 of the OEA Act, an issue was framed on that point along with other issues and in the Judgment of the said suit, that issue along with other issues were answered against the defendant Nos.1 and 2.
After the preliminary and final decrees passed in that T.S. No.9 of 1991, the said decrees in that suit have become final and binding upon the parties including the defendant Nos.1 and 2 due to non-challenge to the same by them (defendant Nos.1 and 2) before the appropriate higher forums.
For which, the CMA No.01 of 2006 under Section 47 of the CPC filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 is liable to be dismissed.

6. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Div.), Padampur dismissed to the CMA No.1 of 2006 under Section 47 of the CPC, 1908 of the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 and 2) on dated 24.02.2010 assigning the reasons that,

“the Court cannot go behind the decree, as in the Judgment and Decree passed in the suit vide T.S. No.9 of 1991, the ground raised by the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 and 2) in CMA No.1 of 2006 was considered and replied in negative clarifying that, the settlement of the suit land under Section 8(1) of the OEA Act, 1951 even in the name of one member of the joint family, the same was for the benefit of all the members of the joint family including the plaintiffs and on the basis of the said observations, the preliminary decree thereof was passed and thereafter, final decree was also passed in that suit in