The executing court correctly dismissed the Section 47 application regarding the maintainability of the decree execution, affirming the authority of the power of attorney in evidence and addressing jurisdictional matters.

COMMON ORDER

C.RP.No.682 of 2026 has been filed by the judgment debtors/defendants challenging the order in E.A.No.4 of 2025 in E.P.No.7 of 2020 on the file of the District Judge, Nagapattinam.

2.CRP.No.686 of 2026 has been filed challenging the decreetal order in E.A.No.3 of 2024 in E.P.No.7 of 2020 on the file of the District Judge, Nagapattinam.

3.I have heard Mr.R.Muruga Bharathi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/judgment debtors and Mr.G.Veerapathiran, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder.

4.Mr.R.Muruga Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would state that the respondent has filed a suit for specific performance through his son, who was the power of attorney agent of the respondent. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.12,14,400/- and an advance of Rs.5,70,000/- was paid, leaving the balance of Rs.6,44,400/- to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. As there was a default in compliance with the terms of the agreement, the decree holder filed O.S.No.18 of 2015 for specific performance. The suit was decreed on 04.07.2017 and in order to execute the decree, E.P.No.7 of 2020 has been filed. The petitioners took out an application under Section 47 of CPC, questioning the executability of the decree. Simultaneously, the decree holder filed E.A.No.4 of 2025 under Section 94(e) r/w 151 of CPC to decide the maintainability of the Section 47 application, as a preliminary issue. Both the applications were enquired into and the executing Court, accepting the case of the decree holder, allowed E.A.No.4 of 2025 and rejected the Section 47 application in E.A.No.3 of 2024.

5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would state that the approach of the executing Court was improper, as the valuable rights available to the petitioner to lead evidence in the Section 47 application, have been deprived and denied totally and the order of the executing Court was without a proper opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their contentions regarding inexecutability of the decree. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further state that the suit was filed before the Court, lacking pecuniary jurisdiction and the plaintiff ought not to have filed the suit before the District Court, as the balance sale consideration was less than of Rs.10 lakhs. He would therefore state that when the question of executability of the decree goes to a jurisdictional issue, the executing Court ought to have entertained the Section 47 application and dismissed the application to decide the maintainability of the Section 47 application, as a preliminary issue. The learned counsel for the petitioners would therefore pray for the revisions being allowed.

6.Per contra, Mr.G.Veerapathiran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would state that the petitioners agitated the matter up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and lost throughout and only in order to drag the proceedings endlessly, he has taken out the Section 47 application. In order to nip the attempt in the bud, the respondent thought it necessary to take out an application, questioning the very maintainability of the Section 47 application, which cannot be found fault with, especially since the issues raised in the Section 47 application could very well be decided, without any requirement of oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent further state that the only other contention that was raised in the Section 47 application was with regard to the power of attorney giving evidence on behalf of the principal. I