1988 Supreme(All) 368
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. L. YADAV
HIRA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
HARINATH CHAURASIYA - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 8285 Of 1988
Decided On : 08/04/1988
R.P.Tripathi
Objections to the validity of a decree cannot be raised in execution proceedings under S. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as they should have been raised at the initial stage before the issues were framed or before the suit was decreed.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - S. 16 (C) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - OBJECTIONS IN EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS - SCOPE - COURT'S JURISDICTION - DECREE - VALIDITY - OBJECTIONS - STAGE OF RAISING - S. 47 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the execution of a decree for specific performance of a contract on the ground that the suit was barred by S. 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the plaintiff did not allege readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the objections raised by the petitioner could not be entertained in execution proceedings under S. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as they should have been raised at the initial stage before the issues were framed or before the suit was decreed. The court further held that the decree, once passed, was binding on the parties and could not be challenged in execution proceedings on the grounds which were open to the judgment-debtor at the appropriate stage.
Issues: Whether objections to the validity of a decree can be raised in execution proceedings under S. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of S. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which provides that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. The court held that the objections raised by the petitioner did not relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and therefore could not be entertained in execution proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the objections raised by the petitioner could not be entertained in execution proceedings and that the decree was binding on the parties.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18th March, 1988 (Ann. 6), 14-04-88 (Ann. 8), 24-12-87 (Ann. 5) and 20-5-77 (Ann. 3), passed on the objections taken by the judgment-debtor, the petitioners, in execution proceedings in a suit filed by respondent No. 1 for specific performance of the contract which was decreed and the decree became final against the petitioners.
( 2 ) THE aforesaid decree was put in execution by respondent No. 1. The petitioners, judgment- debtors filed objections under S. 47 of the Civil P. C. (for short the Code) stating that the suit was barred by S. 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short the Act), as the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 did not allege in his plaint that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Hence the suit could not have been decreed and the decree itself was without jurisdiction and nullity, hence the execution application could not be allowed.
( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1, however, refuted the objections raised by the judgment-debtor and alleged that sufficient allegations required for a suit for specific performance of the contract, were made. Further those objections must have been in any case, raised at the initial stage before the issues were framed, and in case they were not raised, these objections of the judgment-debtor were not maintainable when the decree has been put in execution, as once the decree has been put in execution, only the objections pertaining to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree could be raised and those objections could not be raised which could have been raised at the initial stage before framing issues or in any case before the suit was decreed. It was further alleged that the execution Court cannot go behind the decree except in very exceptional circumstances where the decree itself was without jurisdiction. The learned Munsif, however, rejected the objections of the petitioners under S. 47 of the Civil P. C. The revision against that order also failed by order dated 18-03-88. It is against these orders the present petition has been filed.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners urged that the suit was barred by S. 16 (c) of the Act as the necessary averments were not made in the plaint, hence the Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree or in any case such a decree was a nullity. The respondents are (sic) and for them it was urged that such objections cannot be raised in execution proceedings.
( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are devoid of merits. Once the suit has been decreed and the said decree having become final and is put in execution, it is only within the purview of S. 47 of the Act that the objections could be raised Part III of the Civil P. C. , 1908 (for short the Code), particularly Ss. 36 to 47 deal with the execution of decree. Even subsequent sections till S. 74 enact several provisions for different stages in the execution proceedings. But S. 47 (1) is very material, and relevant part of the same is set out below :"47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing the decree: All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. "
( 6 ) THE scope of objection by the judgment-debtor is pertaining to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and not to go behind the decree to question its validity on the grounds which were open to judgment-debtor at the appropriate stage before the decree was passed. The word execution is not a defined term under the Code. According to Collins Concise English Dictionary the word execution connotes to carry out, to complete, to perform, to accomplish, to carry into