The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely objections in execution proceedings and the need for liberal construction of the rules to enable decree-holders to realize the fruits of their decrees as early as possible.

1. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 11-3-2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Belonia, South Tripura in Execution (Title) Suit No. 3 of 2013 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for directing survey of her lands for “demarcating it and pegging pillars” and appoint Survey Commissioner there for.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to this revision are that the respondent, who is the decree holder, instituted T.S. No. 36 of 2011 before the trial court. According to the petitioner, who was the defendant in the suit, the suit was not properly defended by her lawyer; she could not pursue the suit as she was suffering from various diseases with the result that the suit was decreed against her ex parte. According to the petitioner, she came to know about the ex-parte decree only when the respondent made an attempt to occupy the said land. She claims that on getting this information, she rushed to Belonia and found on enquiry that the respondent had obtained the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 28-8-2012 and 4-9-2012 respectively by suppressing material facts. At the time of execution of the ex-parte decree, the Survey Commissioner identified the decretal land but included 0.1 decimal of land purchased by and belonging to her whereupon she put resistance and filed an application under Section 47, CPC by pointing out the said two plots in two maps. The Executing Court, however, took the view that as there had been no objection during the trial, such objection could not be entertained during the execution proceedings. The petitioner, as judgment debtor, also filed an application under Order 21, Rule 98 CPC before the Executing Court for determination of her title over the said land, but no order has been passed rejecting or accepting the application. It may be noted that the Executing Court had observed that during the execution proceedings, the boundary of the suit land had been corrected without any objection from the judgment-debtor/petitioner herein. The Executing Court, therefore, held as follows:

“It is settled law that an executing Court can’t go behind the decree. This court being an executing court, it cannot determine the validity of the decree. Further, for the sake of identification the decretal land, at this stage, in my considered opinion, there is no necessity for demarcation of the land belonging to the present JD. As such the application is not maintainable and thus the same is rejected.

Previously appointed Survey Commissioner Shri P. Majumder is directed to identify the decretal land and to submit report on the next date positively without fail.

Bailiff is directed to hand over the possession of the decretal land to the D.H. upon identification by the S.C. …”

3. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Amitava Dasgupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Section 47, CPC precludes the petitioner from filing a separate suit with respect to her right, title and interest over those entire 0.11 decimals of land, and the learned Civil Judge in not entertaining her application has improperly exercised her jurisdiction thereby causing prejudice to her case; this amounts to perpetuating illegality. He further contends that the learned Civil Judge has completely overlooked the provisions of Order 21, Rule 101, CPC which categorically declares that all questions including the right, title or interests in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Order 21, Rules 97 or 99 or their representatives and relevant to the adjudication of the application shall be determined by the executing court, for which no separate suit could be filed. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit was decreed ex-parte and the respondent fraudulently got the boundary of the suit land described in the Schedule to the plaint corrected after he filed an application for execution of the decree. A