Executing courts cannot question the legality of a decree unless it is a nullity due to lack of inherent jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 1, which is to be filed through E-mode today itself.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided at the admission stage itself.

3. The present revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.C.) against the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri on the application of the revisionist under Section 47 of the C.P.C. filed in the execution proceedings.

4. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for recovery of amount for the articles supplied during the Panchayat Elections filed by the respondent no. 1 in which the written statement has been filed by the revisionists and thereafter, issues were framed and a final decree has been passed on 19.02.2016. Against the decree dated 19.02.2016, the present revisionists preferred a First Appeal No. 60 of 2016 before the High Court which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 07.04.2025. Against which the present revisionists preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 01.08.2025.

5. After the dismissal of the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the revisionists preferred a Review Petition No. 156 of 2025 before this Court and by taking a ground that the decree passed by the trial court is without jurisdiction for the reason that the State Election Commission was not arrayed as defendant. The said review application was also dismissed on 23.09.2025.

6. The execution proceedings is pending since the year 2017. In the said execution proceedings, an application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. has been filed by the revisionists on 10.10.2025, after the dismissal of the First Appeal, the dismissal of the SLP and the dismissal of the review application taking a ground that the decree cannot be executed for the reason that the State Election Commission has not been arrayed as defendant in the suit before the learned trial court. The said application of the revisionists has been rejected by order dated 24.11.2025 and feeling aggrieved by the same, the present revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the suit was filed without making the State Election Commission as defendant who is the person who makes payment for the expenditure incurred during the elections and due to which the decree cannot be executed against the revisionists i.e. the District Deputy Election Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Lakhimpur Kheri and District Magistrate/District Election Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri.

8. It is further submitted that for the impleadment of the State Election Commission, an application for impleadment was filed by the revisionists which was rejected on 16.05.2014 against which a revision was preferred by the revisionists which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.03.2024 in which the recall application has been filed which is still pending.

9. On the other hand, Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri while rejecting the application preferred by the revisionists under Section 47 of the C.P.C.

10. It is further submitted that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree nor it questions its legality or correctness and in support of his submission, he h