The Executing Court cannot reassess a decree's validity on jurisdictional grounds after the decree has attained finality; jurisdictional issues can only be raised during original proceedings.

1. Heard Mr. Kushal Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - judgment debtor and Mr. Pranabashis Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - decree holder.

2. Petition under S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC, for short) by the judgment debtor in C.M. (J) No.45 of 2022 arising out of Execution (M) No.01 of 2020 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 09.04.2024 by the Executing Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala. Judgment debtor / petitioner herein had questioned the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court in passing the judgment and decree as the subject matter of the case fell under Commercial Courts Act, 2015 . As such, the learned trial Court lacked jurisdiction on the principle of coram non judice. Since the question of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and if the judgment and decree is a ity in the eye of law, it could be raised at any stage including the stage of execution under S.47 of the CPC. In support of this plea, learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the case of Sarwan Kumar and another v. Madan Lal Aggarwal reported in AIR 2003 SC 1475 and M/s. National Highway Authority of India v. M/s. B. Seenaiah and Company (Projects) Ltd. (F.M.A. No.254 of 2012 of Calcutta High Court).

3. The opposite party / decree holder filed a written objection thereto. It took a plea that the learned Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree in an application under S.47 of the CPC. It was further pointed out by the decree holder / respondent herein that the original judgment and decree was passed ex parte on 21.11.2019 in M.S. No.12 of 2019. The MFA No.03 of 2022 instituted against it was also dismissed by order dated 30.09.2022 by this Court as the connected condonation application was dismissed. The learned trial Court upon consideration of the rival submission of the parties rejected the prayer in the following manner: -
"Perused the application field by the Jd / Petitioner u/S. 47 of CPC as well as the W/O filed by the OP / DH.
The Jd / Petitioner submitted that the decree passed in the main suit cannot be executed as the suit should have been tried by Commercial Court and not by an Ordinary Civil Court, being barred by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 .
The principle of S.47 of CPC is that all the questions arising between the parties relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction of a decree in a suit shall be determined in the execution proceeding.
An Executing Court cannot go behind the decree already passed and cannot entertain the question of jurisdiction of the Trial Court, where the Trial Court has already passed judgment after considering all aspects in terms of jurisdiction. Here, in the main suit the Jd / Petitioner did not appear before the Court even after receiving the summons and the suit proceeded ex - parte against him and judgment and decree was also passed ex - parte. He did not raise any point therein by contesting the suit.
The Executing Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction ( V.D. Modi v. R.A. Rehman AIR 1970 SC 1475 ). Once the decree has become final, the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree except the matter relating to execution, discharge, and satisfaction of a decree.
No fresh plea can be taken by a J/d in the execution proceeding, wherein he remained absent in the main proceeding inspite of receiving the summons.
Hence, considering the ambit of S.47 of CPC and the submissions of both sides, I am not satisfied with